I have the following problem:
I need to identify the last occurrence of any sub-string given in table A, and return that given value in return in the select statement of another statement. This is a bit convoluted, but here is the code:
SELECT TRIM(COUNTRY_CODE)
FROM (
SELECT TOP 1 POSITION( PHRASE IN MY_STRING) AS PHRASE_LOCATION, CODE
FROM REFERENCE_TABLE -- Where the country list is located
WHERE PHRASE_LOCATION > 0 -- To return NULL if there is no matches
ORDER BY 1 DESC -- To get the last one
) t1
This works when run by it self, but i have large problems getting it to work as part of another queries' select. I need "MY_STRING" to come from a higher level in the nested select three. The reasons for this is how the system is designed on a higher level.
In other words i need the following:
PHRASE is coming from a table that have a phrases and a code associated
MY_STRING is used in the higher level select and i need to associate a code with it, based on the last occurring phrase
Number of different phrases > 400 so no hard coding :(
Number of different "MY_STRING" > 1 000 000 / day
So far i tried what you can see above, but due to the constraints of the system, i cannot be to creative.
Example Phrases: "New York", "London", "Oslo"
Example Codes: "US", "UK, "NO"
Example Strings: "London House, Something street, New York"; "Some street x, 0120, OSL0".
Desired Outcomes: "US"; "NO"
This will result in a product join, i.e. use a lot of CPU:
SELECT MY_STRING
-- using INSTR searching the last occurance instead of POSITION if the same PHRASE might occur multiple times
-- INSTR is case sensitive -> must use LOWER
,Instr(Lower(MY_STRING), Lower(PHRASE), -1, 1) AS PHRASE_LOCATION
,CODE
,PHRASE
FROM table_with_MY_STRING
LEFT JOIN REFERENCE_TABLE -- to return NULL if no match
ON PHRASE_LOCATION > 0
QUALIFY
Row_Number() -- return last match
Over (PARTITION BY MY_STRING
ORDER BY PHRASE_LOCATION DESC) = 1
If this is not efficient enough another possible solution might utilize STRTOK_SPLIT_TO_TABLE/REGEXP_SPLIT_TO_TABLE: split the address into parts and then join those parts to PHRASE.
Related
I have the following query that is part of a common table expression. I don't understand the function of the "Select -1" statement. It is obviously different than the "Select 1" that is used in "EXISTS" statements. Any ideas?
select days_old,
count(express_cd),
count(*),
case
when round(count(express_cd)*100.0/count(*),2) < 1 then '0'
else ''
end ||
cast(decimal(round(count(express_cd)*100.0/count(*),2),5,2) as varchar(7)) ||
'%'
from foo.bar
group by days_old
union all
select -1, -- Selecting the -1 here
count(express_cd),
count(*),
case
when round(count(express_cd)*100.0/count(*),2) < 1 then '0'
else ''
end ||
cast(decimal(round(count(express_cd)*100.0/count(*),2),5,2) as varchar(7)) ||
'%'
from foo.bar
where days_old between 1 and 7
It's just selecting the number "minus one" for each row returned, just like "select 1" will select the number "one" for each row returned.
There is nothing special about the "select 1" syntax uses in EXISTS statements by the way; it's just selecting some random value because EXISTS requires a record to be returned and a record needs data; the number 1 is sufficient.
Why you would do this, I have no idea.
When you have a union statement, each part of the union must contain the same columns. From what I read when I look at this, the first statement is giving you one line for each days old value and then some stats for each day old. The second part of the union is giving you a summary of all the records that are only a week or so less. Since days old column is not relevant here, they put in a fake value as a placeholder in order to do the union. OF course this is just a guess based on reading thousands of queries through the years. To be sure, I would need to actually run teh code.
Since you say this is a CTE, to really understand why this is is happening, you may need to look at the data it generates and how that data is used in the next query that uses the CTE. That might answer your question.
What you have asked is basically about a business rule unique to your company. The true answer should lie in any requirements documents for the original creation of the code. You should go look for them and read them. We can make guesses based on our own experience but only people in your company can answer the why question here.
If you can't find the documentation, then you need to talk (Yes directly talk, preferably in person) to the Stakeholders who use the data and find out what their needs were. Only do this after running the code and analyzing the results to better understand the meaning of the data returned.
Based on your query, all the records with days_old between 1 and 7 will be output as '-1', that is what select -1 does, nothing special here and there is no difference between select -1 and select 1 in exists, both will output the records as either 1 or -1, they are doing the same thing to check whether if there has any data.
Back to your query, I noticed that you have a union all and compare each four columns you select connected by union all, I am guessing your task is to get a final result with days_old not between 1 and 7 and combine the result with day_old, which is one because you take all between 1 and 7.
It is just a grouping logic there.
Your query returns aggregated
data (counts and rounds) grouped by days_old column plus one more group for data where days_old between 1 and 7.
So, -1 is just another additional group there, it cannot be 1 because days_old=1 is an another valid group.
result will be like this:
row1: days_old=1 count(*)=2 ...
row2: days_old=3 count(*)=5 ...
row3: days_old=9 count(*)=6 ...
row4: days_old=-1 count(*)=7
I have a database table with document names stored as a VARCHAR and I need a way to figure out what the lowest available sequence number is. There are many gaps.
name partial seq
A-B-C-0001 A-B-C- 0001
A-B-C-0017 A-B-C- 0017
In the above example, it would be 0002.
The distinct name values total 227,705. The number of "partial" combinations is quite large A=150, B=218, C=52 so 1,700,400 potential combinations.
I found a way to iterate through from min to max per distinct value and list all the "missing" (aka available) values, but this seems inefficient given we are not using anywhere close to the max potential partial combinations (10,536 out of 1,700,400).
I'd rather have a table based on existing data with a partial value, it's next available sequence value, and a non-existent partial means 0001.
Thanks
Hmmmm, you can try this:
select coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where partial = 'A-B-C-' and
not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
);
EDIT:
For all partials you need a group by:
You can use to_char() to convert it back to a character, if necessary.
select partial, coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
)
group by partial;
I am practicing SQL in Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (not a homework question), and have a table Names. The table shows baby names by year, with columns Sex (gender of name), N (number of babies having that name), Yr (year), and Name (the name itself).
I need to write a query using only one SELECT statement that returns the most popular baby name by year, with gender, the year, and the number of babies named. So far I have;
SELECT *
From Names
ORDER By N DESC;
Which gives the highest values of N in DESC order, repeating years. I need to limit it to only the highest value in each year, and everything I have tried to do so has thrown errors. Any advice you can give me for this would be appreciated.
Off the top of my my head, something like the following would normally let you do it in (technically) one SELECT statment. That statement includes sub-SELECTs, but I'm not immediately seeing an alternative that wouldn't.
When there's joint top ranking names, both queries should bring back all joint top results so there may not be exactly one answer. If you then just need a random single representative row from those result, look at using select top 1, perhaps adding order by to get the first alphabetically.
Most popular by year regardless of gender:
-- ONE PER YEAR:
SELECT n.Year, n.Name, n.Gender, n.Qty FROM Name n
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM Name n2
WHERE n2.Year = n.Year
AND n2.Qty > n.Qty
)
Most popular by year for each gender:
-- ONE PER GENDER PER YEAR:
SELECT n.Year, n.Name, n.Gender, n.Qty FROM Name n
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM Name n2
WHERE n2.Year = n.Year
AND n2.Gender = n.Gender
AND n2.Qty > n.Qty
)
Performance is, despite the verbosity of the SQL, usually on a par with alternatives when using this pattern (often better).
There are other approaches, including using GROUP statements, but personally I find this one more readable and standard cross-DBMS.
I have a spreadsheet with customer accounts and when we get a new account it gets added on using a reference account number i.e. Anderson Electrical would be AND01 etc. I'm trying to use sql to bring back the highest number from each variation of letterings e.g. if AND01 already existed and our highest company value was AND34 then it would just bring back AND34 rather than 1 to 34.
Each account has the first 3 letters of there company name followed by whatever the next number is.
Hope I have explained this well enouh for someone to understand :)
For a single reference account:
select max(AcctNum)
from Accounts
where left(AcctNum, 3) = <reference account>
If you want it for all at once:
select left(AcctNum, 3) as ReferenceAcct, max(AcctNum)
from Accounts
group by left(AcctNum, 3)
Not sure if that's what you're asking but if you need to find max value that is part of a string you can do it with substring. So if you need to find the highest number from a column that contains those values you can do it with:
;WITH tmp AS(
SELECT 'AND01' AS Tmp
UNION ALL
SELECT 'AND34'
) SELECT MAX(SUBSTRING(tmp, 4, 2)) FROM tmp GROUP BY SUBSTRING(tmp, 0, 3)
That's a little test query that returns 34 because I'm grouping by first 3 letters, you probably want to group it by some ID.
Use:
The user searches for a partial postcode such as 'RG20' which should then be displayed in a specific order. The query uses the MATCH AGAINST method in boolean mode where an example of the postcode in the database would be 'RG20 7TT' so it is able to find it.
At the same time it also matches against a list of other postcodes which are in it's radius (which is a separate query).
I can't seem to find a way to order by a partial match, e.g.:
ORDER BY FIELD(postcode, 'RG20', 'RG14', 'RG18','RG17','RG28','OX12','OX11')
DESC, city DESC
Because it's not specifically looking for RG20 7TT, I don't think it can make a partial match.
I have tried SUBSTR (postcode, -4) and looked into left and right, but I haven't had any success using 'by field' and could not find another route...
Sorry this is a bit long winded, but I'm in a bit of a bind.
A UK postcode splits into 2 parts, the last section always being 3 characters and within my database there is a space between the two if that helps at all.
Although there is a DESC after the postcodes, I do need them to display in THAT particular order (RG20, RG14 then RG18 etc..) I'm unsure if specifying descending will remove the ordering or not
Order By Case
When postcode Like 'RG20%' Then 1
When postcode Like 'RG14%' Then 2
When postcode Like 'RG18%' Then 3
When postcode Like 'RG17%' Then 4
When postcode Like 'RG28%' Then 5
When postcode Like 'OX12%' Then 6
When postcode Like 'OX11%' Then 7
Else 99
End Asc
, City Desc
You're on the right track, trimming the field down to its first four characters:
ORDER BY FIELD(LEFT(postcode, 4), 'RG20', 'RG14', ...),
-- or SUBSTRING(postcode FROM 1 FOR 4)
-- or SUBSTR(postcode, 1, 4)
Here you don't want DESC.
(If your result set contains postcodes whose prefixes do not appear in your FIELD() ordering list, you'll have a bit more work to do, since those records will otherwise appear before any explicitly ordered records you specify. Before 'RG20' in the example above.)
If you want a completely custom sorting scheme, then I only see one way to do it...
Create a table to hold the values upon which to sort, and include a "sequence" or "sort_order" field. You can then join to this table and sort by the sequence field.
One note on the sequence field. It makes sense to create it as an int as... well, sequences are often ints :)
If there is any possibility of changing the sort order, you may want to consider making it alpha numeric... It is a lot easier to insert "5A" between "5 and "6" than it is to insert a number into a sequence of integers.
Another method I use is utilising the charindex function:
order by charindex(substr(postcode,4,1),"RG20RG14RG18...",1)
I think that's the syntax anyway, I'm just doing this in SAS at the moment so I've had to adapt from memory!
But essentially the sooner you hit your desired part of the string, the higher the rank.
If you're trying to rank on a large variety of postcodes then a case statement gets pretty hefty.