I don't know how to simply phrase my question, but here is the scenario. I have two tables with data as follows:
CertStatus Table:
CertStatus_KEY CertStatus_ID
1 ACTIVE
2 EXPIRED
CertImport Table:
Status
ACTIVE
EXPIRED
EXPIRED
ACTIVE
EXPIRED
ACTIVE
What I need to do is take the CertImport.Status column, convert all of those statuses to the CertStatus_KEY that matches the CertStatus_ID, and then copy all of that info into a third table with two columns, so the data would end up as follows.
Certification Table:
Certification_KEY CertStatus_KEY
1 1
2 2
3 2
4 1
5 2
6 1
I'm trying to use an Insert Into Select statement but I get an error that says the Subquery returned more than 1 value. Here's what I've got:
INSERT INTO Certification (CertStatus_KEY)
SELECT (
SELECT CertStatus_KEY from CertStatus where CertStatus_ID in (
SELECT Status from CertImport)
)
Simplified, the goal is to convert the CertImport.Status to the CertStatus.CertStatus_KEY value that corresponds to the matching CertStatus.CertStatus_ID, and then insert that value into Certification.CertStatus_KEY.
Thanks.
Insert into Certification (CertStatus_Key)
select cs.Certstatus_Key
from CertStatus cs
inner join CertImport ci on cs.CertStatus_Id = ci.Status;
DBFiddle demo
Note: In SQL server, it is not guaranteed in which order the results would return from the select unless an order by clause is specified (or at least there is a clustered index). For a small data set like this you would get the result just as you asked but for a larger one there is no guarantee. Actually, design seems to be bad from the start, CertImport should have an ID column?
Related
I have a large database and i'd like to pull info from a table (Term) where the Names are not linked to a PartyId for a certain SearchId. However:
There are multiple versions of the searches (sometimes 20-40 - otherwise I think SQL - Comparing two rows and two columns would work for me)
The PartyId will almost always be NULL for the first version for the search, and if the same Name for the same SearchId has a PartyId associated in a later version the NULL row should not appear in the results of the query.
I have 8 left joins to display the information requested - 3 of them are joined on the Term table
A very simplified sample of data is below
CASE statement? Join the table with itself for comparison? A temp table or do I just return the fields I'm joining on and/or want to display?
Providing sample data that yields no expected result is not as useful as providing data that gives an expected result..
When asking a question start with defining the problem in plain English. If you can't you don't understand your problem well enough yet. Then define the tables which are involved in the problem (including the columns) and sample data; the SQL you've tried, and what you're expected result is using the data in your sample. Without this minimum information we make many guesses and even with that information we may have to make assumptions; but without a minimum verifiable example showing illustrating your question, helping is problematic.
--End soap box
I'm guessing you're after only the names for a searchID which has a NULL partyID for the highest SearchVerID
So if we eliminated ID 6 from your example data, then 'Bob' would be returned
If we added ID 9 to your sample data for name 'Harry' with a searchID of 2 and a searchVerID of 3 and a null partyID then 'Harry' too would be returned...
If my understanding is correct, then perhaps...
WITH CTE AS (
SELECT Name, Row_Number() over (partition by Name order by SearchVersID Desc)
FROM Term
WHERE SearchID = 2)
SELECT Name
FROM CTE
WHERE RN = 1
and partyID is null;
This assigns a row number (RN) to each name starting at 1 and increasing by one for each entry; for searchID's of 2. The highest searchversion will always have a RN of 1. Then we filter to include only those RN which are 1 and have a null partyID. This would result in only those names having a searchID of 2 the highest search version and a NULL partyID
Ok So I took the question a different way too..
If you simply want all the names not linked to a PartyID for a given search.
SELECT A.*
FROM TERM A
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM TERM B
WHERE A.Name = B.Name
AND SearchID = 2) and partyID is not null)
AND searchID = 2
The above should return all term records associated to searchID 2
that have a partyId. This last method is the exists not exists and set logic I was talking about in comments.
I am working with timestamped records and need to do an inner join based on the timestamp difference. I have been using the DATEDIFF function and it seems to be working well. However, the amount of time between timestamps varies. To clarify, sometimes the record appears in table 2 within the same second as table 1, and sometimes the record in table 2 is up to 15 seconds behind the record in table 1. The records in table 1 are always timestamped before table 2. There is no other common field with which I can join, however there is a register number in each table that I am using to increase accuracy by ensuring that the registers are the same.
My question is: if I increase the timestamp difference to do the inner join (e.g. where the DATEDIFF = 1 or 2 or 3... or 15) will records only be joined once? Or would my table contain duplicate records from table 1 (e.g. where record 1 is joined to record 4 in table 2 where the diff is 4 seconds, and is also joined with record 7 from table 2 where the diff is 11 seconds)?
The reason my statement works now is that no registers have records with less than 6 seconds in between, so even if there are multiple timestamps that would match, the matching of registers eliminates this problem.
My Statement is currently working as:
SELECT *
INTO AtriumSequoiaJoin5
FROM Atrium INNER JOIN Sequoia ON Atrium.Reader = Sequoia.theader_pos_name
WHERE (
((DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=0
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=1
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=2
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=3
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=4
Or (Datediff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=5)
)
ORDER BY Sequoia.theader_id;
you could CROSS APPLY to the closest record in proximity. That's by no means ideal however, what if there are multiple records written at the same time? You perhaps should give the first table an identity field, then update the next table with scopeidentity
SELECT *
INTO AtriumSequoiaJoin5
FROM Atrium CROSS APPLY
(SELECT TOP 1 * FROM Sequoia WHERE
Atrium.Reader = Sequoia.theader_pos_name
ORDER BY Datediff(millisecond,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime])) DQ
ORDER BY Sequoia.theader_id;
I have a table with data in it I want to keep, but I have to add a new column of integers for ordering purposes. Now this ordering will be different depending on the clientID as each different client wants different ordering. So in my example there are 3 different clients, the first client has 10 rows of data the second has 15, and the third has 87. So basically I'm looking for a query that will let me update the ordering column in a way that will allow me to do a select on the table that would give results like this.
Select ordering from table Where clientID = 1
-----------
Ordering
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Now the query I'm currently using to do this is
UPDATE data SET ordering = generate_series
FROM (SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,87)) as k <
where clientid = '3'
This will update all the correct rows but only with the first value, so all the values in ordering would be 1. I feel like I'm missing something here or this just doesn't work in postgres as it does in other SQL languages. Any solution here will help I would also like to know why my update would not work as I expected in postgres. Also I cannot change versions of postgres based on the environment I work in.
I don't see why you would need generate_series(). A window function that numbers all rows for each client should do:
update data
set ordering = t.rn
from (select pk_column,
row_number() over (partition by clientid order by pk_column) as rn
from data
) t
where t.pk_column = data.pk_column;
pk_column is the primary key column of the table data
I have a question here that looks a little like some of the ones that I found in search, but with solutions for slightly different problems and, importantly, ones that don't work in SQL 2000.
I have a very large table with a lot of redundant data that I am trying to reduce down to just the useful entries. It's a history table, and the way it works, if two entries are essentially duplicates and consecutive when sorted by date, the latter can be deleted. The data from the earlier entry will be used when historical data is requested from a date between the effective date of that entry and the next non-duplicate entry.
The data looks something like this:
id user_id effective_date important_value useless_value
1 1 1/3/2007 3 0
2 1 1/4/2007 3 1
3 1 1/6/2007 NULL 1
4 1 2/1/2007 3 0
5 2 1/5/2007 12 1
6 3 1/1/1899 7 0
With this sample set, we would consider two consecutive rows duplicates if the user_id and the important_value are the same. From this sample set, we would only delete row with id=2, preserving the information from 1-3-2007, showing that the important_value changed on 1-6-2007, and then showing the relevant change again on 2-1-2007.
My current approach is awkward and time-consuming, and I know there must be a better way. I wrote a script that uses a cursor to iterate through the user_id values (since that breaks the huge table up into manageable pieces), and creates a temp table of just the rows for that user. Then to get consecutive entries, it takes the temp table, joins it to itself on the condition that there are no other entries in the temp table with a date between the two dates. In the pseudocode below, UDF_SameOrNull is a function that returns 1 if the two values passed in are the same or if they are both NULL.
WHILE (##fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM History INTO #history WHERE user_id = #UserId
--return entries to delete
SELECT h2.id
INTO #delete_history_ids
FROM #history h1
JOIN #history h2 ON
h1.effective_date < h2.effective_date
AND dbo.UDF_SameOrNull(h1.important_value, h2.important_value)=1
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM #history hx WHERE hx.effective_date > h1.effective_date and hx.effective_date < h2.effective_date)
DELETE h1
FROM History h1
JOIN #delete_history_ids dh ON
h1.id = dh.id
FETCH NEXT FROM UserCursor INTO #UserId
END
It also loops over the same set of duplicates until there are none, since taking out rows creates new consecutive pairs that are potentially dupes. I left that out for simplicity.
Unfortunately, I must use SQL Server 2000 for this task and I am pretty sure that it does not support ROW_NUMBER() for a more elegant way to find consecutive entries.
Thanks for reading. I apologize for any unnecessary backstory or errors in the pseudocode.
OK, I think I figured this one out, excellent question!
First, I made the assumption that the effective_date column will not be duplicated for a user_id. I think it can be modified to work if that is not the case - so let me know if we need to account for that.
The process basically takes the table of values and self-joins on equal user_id and important_value and prior effective_date. Then, we do 1 more self-join on user_id that effectively checks to see if the 2 joined records above are sequential by verifying that there is no effective_date record that occurs between those 2 records.
It's just a select statement for now - it should select all records that are to be deleted. So if you verify that it is returning the correct data, simply change the select * to delete tcheck.
Let me know if you have questions.
select
*
from
History tcheck
inner join History tprev
on tprev.[user_id] = tcheck.[user_id]
and tprev.important_value = tcheck.important_value
and tprev.effective_date < tcheck.effective_date
left join History checkbtwn
on tcheck.[user_id] = checkbtwn.[user_id]
and checkbtwn.effective_date < tcheck.effective_date
and checkbtwn.effective_date > tprev.effective_date
where
checkbtwn.[user_id] is null
OK guys, I did some thinking last night and I think I found the answer. I hope this helps someone else who has to match consecutive pairs in data and for some reason is also stuck in SQL Server 2000.
I was inspired by the other results that say to use ROW_NUMBER(), and I used a very similar approach, but with an identity column.
--create table with identity column
CREATE TABLE #history (
id int,
user_id int,
effective_date datetime,
important_value int,
useless_value int,
idx int IDENTITY(1,1)
)
--insert rows ordered by effective_date and now indexed in order
INSERT INTO #history
SELECT * FROM History
WHERE user_id = #user_id
ORDER BY effective_date
--get pairs where consecutive values match
SELECT *
FROM #history h1
JOIN #history h2 ON
h1.idx+1 = h2.idx
WHERE h1.important_value = h2.important_value
With this approach, I still have to iterate over the results until it returns nothing, but I can't think of any way around that and this approach is miles ahead of my last one.
This is staight forward I believe:
I have a table with 30,000 rows. When I SELECT DISTINCT 'location' FROM myTable it returns 21,000 rows, about what I'd expect, but it only returns that one column.
What I want is to move those to a new table, but the whole row for each match.
My best guess is something like SELECT * from (SELECT DISTINCT 'location' FROM myTable) or something like that, but it says I have a vague syntax error.
Is there a good way to grab the rest of each DISTINCT row and move it to a new table all in one go?
SELECT * FROM myTable GROUP BY `location`
or if you want to move to another table
CREATE TABLE foo AS SELECT * FROM myTable GROUP BY `location`
Distinct means for the entire row returned. So you can simply use
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM myTable GROUP BY 'location'
Using Distinct on a single column doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's say I have the following simple set
-id- -location-
1 store
2 store
3 home
if there were some sort of query that returned all columns, but just distinct on location, which row would be returned? 1 or 2? Should it just pick one at random? Because of this, DISTINCT works for all columns in the result set returned.
Well, first you need to decide what you really want returned.
The problem is that, presumably, for some of the location values in your table there are different values in the other columns even when the location value is the same:
Location OtherCol StillOtherCol
Place1 1 Fred
Place1 89 Fred
Place1 1 Joe
In that case, which of the three rows do you want to select? When you talk about a DISTINCT Location, you're condensing those three rows of different data into a single row, there's no meaning to moving the original rows from the original table into a new table since those original rows no longer exist in your DISTINCT result set. (If all the other columns are always the same for a given Location, your problem is easier: Just SELECT DISTINCT * FROM YourTable).
If you don't care which values come from the other columns you can use a (bad, IMHO) MySQL extension to SQL and do:
SELECT * FROM YourTable GROUP BY Location
which will give a result set with one row per location and values for the other columns derived from the original data in an undefined fashion.
Multiple rows with identical values in all columns don't have any sense. OK - the question might be a way to correct exactly that situation.
Considering this table, with id being the PK:
kram=# select * from foba;
id | no | name
----+----+---------------
2 | 1 | a
3 | 1 | b
4 | 2 | c
5 | 2 | a,b,c,d,e,f,g
you may extract a sample for every single no (:=location) by grouping over that column, and selecting the row with minimum PK (for example):
SELECT * FROM foba WHERE id IN (SELECT min (id) FROM foba GROUP BY no);
id | no | name
----+----+------
2 | 1 | a
4 | 2 | c