I've been for tha past 2 days trying to solve this problem but can't even seem to find the right terms to google it.
I have 3 tables.
This one, with client codes that changed:
ActualCode=111111111 PreviousCode=44444444
And these two tables with value 1 and value 2:
PreviousCode=11111111, Value1= 50,00, Value2= 0,00
ActualCode=44444444 , Value1= 0,00, Value2 = 50,00
I need to sum the values for each relation of Previous and Actual codes from the first table.
I.E.
For
ActualCode=11111111, PreviousCode=44444444
I need to be able to get:
Code=11111111 Value1=50,00 Value2=50,00
Looking forward for your answer :D
Thanks,
P
You can join the tables and sum the values:
select c.actualcode,
sum(ac.value1) + sum(pc.value1) as value1,
sum(ac.value2) + sum(pc.value2) as value2
from codes c
join actualcodes ac on c.actualcode = ac.actualcode
join previouscodes pc on c.previouscode = pc.previouscode
group by c.actualcode;
Rextester Demo
If you could have values in the main table that don't have corresponding rows in the values tables, then you should use outer joins instead.
Related
I have two tables, one with a single row for each "batch_number" and another with defect details for each batch. The first table has a "defect_of_interest" column which I would like to link to one of the columns in the second table. I am trying to write a query that would then pick the maximum value in that dynamically linked column for any "unit_number" in the "batch_number".
Here is the SQLFiddle with example data for each table: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/a1c27d
For example, the maximum value in the DEFECT_DETAILS.SCRATCHES column for BATCH_NUMBER = A1 is 12.
Here is my desired output:
BATCH_NUMBER DEFECT_OF_INTEREST MAXIMUM_DEFECT_COUNT
------------ ------------------ --------------------
A1 SCRATCHES 12
B3 BUMPS 4
C2 STAINS 9
I have tried using the PIVOT function, but I can't get it to work. Not sure if it works in cases like this. Any help would be much appreciated.
If the number of columns is fixed (it seems to be) you can use CASE to select the specific value according to the related table. Then aggregating is simple.
For example:
select
batch_number,
max(defect_of_interest) as defect_of_interest,
max(defect_count) as maximum_defect_count
from (
select
d.batch_number,
b.defect_of_interest,
case when b.defect_of_interest = 'SCRATCHES' then d.scratches
when b.defect_of_interest = 'BUMPS' then d.bumps
when b.defect_of_interest = 'STAINS' then d.stains
end as defect_count
from defect_details d
join batches b on b.batch_number = d.batch_number
) x
group by batch_number
order by batch_number;
See Oracle example in db<>fiddle.
I'm just getting started with sql and have the objective to transform this:
select X.persnr
from Pruefung X
where X.persnr in (
select Y.persnr
from pruefung Y
where X.matrikelnr <> Y.matrikelnr)
output:
into the same output but using a form of join. I tried it the way below but I can't seem to get "rid" of the cartesian product as far as i can see. Or maybe i misunderstood the above statement what it should actually do. For me the above says "for each unique matrikelnr display all corresponding persnr".
select X.persnr
from Pruefung X
join pruefung y on x.persnr=y.persnr
where x.matrikelnr<>y.matrikelnr
output: A long list (I don't want to fill the entire question with it) - i am guessing the cartesian product from the join
This is the relation I am using.
Edit: Distinct (unless i am using it in the wrong place) won't work because then persnr is only displayed once, thats not the objective though.
Your initial query actually does:
select persnr from Pruefung if the same persnr exists for a a diferent matrikelnr.
"for each unique matrikelnr display all corresponding persnr"
This is achieved using aggregation:
Depending on the DBMS you are using you could use something like (SQL Server uses STRING_AGG, but MySQL uses GROUP_CONCAT)
SELECT matrikelnr,STRING_AGG(matrikelnr,',')
GROUP BY matrikelnr
You cannot easily achieve what you got from a correlated query (your first attempt) by using a join.
Edit:
A join does not result in a "Cartesian product" expect from when there is no join condition (CROSS JOIN).
A join matches two sets based on a join condition. The reason why you get more entries is that the join looks at the join key (PERSNR) and does its matching.
For example for 101 you have 3 entries. That means you will get 3x3 reults.
You then filter out the results for the cases where X.matrikelnr <> Y.matrikelnr If we assume matrikelnr is unique that would mean the row matched with itself. so you will lose 3 results ending up with 3x3 - 3 = 6.
If you want to achieve something in SQL you must first define what you are expecting to use and then use the appropiate tools (in this case correlated queries not joins)
You can write your 1st query with EXISTS instead of IN like:
select X.persnr
from Pruefung X
where exists (
select 1
from pruefung Y
where X.persnr = Y.persnr and X.matrikelnr <> Y.matrikelnr
)
This way it's obvious that this query means:
return all the persnrs of the table for which there exists another
row with the same persnr but different matrikelnr
For your sample data the result is all the persnrs of the table.
Your 2nd query though, does something different.
It links every row of the table with all the rows of the same table with the same persnr but different matrikelnr.
So for every row of the table you will get as many as rows as there are for the same persnrs but different matrikelnrs.
For example for the 1st row with persnr = 101 and matrikelnr = 8532478 you will get 2 rows because there are 2 rows in the table with persnr = 101 and matrikelnr <> 8532478.
You are right. It's the cartesian product's fault. Suppose you have persnr 1,1,1,2,2,2 in the first table and persnr 1,1,1,2,2 in the second. How many lines are you expecting to be returned?
In pdeuso-code it would go like this
Select
...
WHERE persnr in (second table)
-- 6 lines
Select persnr
FROM ...
JOIN ... ON a.persnr = b.persnr
-- 3X3 + 3X2 = 15 lines.
SELECT DISTINCT persnr
FROM ...
JOIN ... ON a.persnr = b.persnr
-- 2 lines (1 and 2)
Take your pick
I have two tables that I want to join together into 1 row by accessruleId for an ssrs report. The issue is FieldName has dynamic values and the same fieldName could appear more than once It seems like Pivot table is what I want but examples I've looked at is pivoting off a unique value and doing an aggregate function. Below is the output for query 1 and 2 and I want to combine the results so it looks like screenshot 3. If a given fieldname shows up more than once (businessArea in this case) I want to make the values comma delimited. Any links to examples similar to my need would be greatly appreciated. I'm using sql server 2016
Query 1
select ar.AccessRuleId, ar.EffectiveDate, ar.TermDate, ar.CreatedByUser, ar.LastUpdatedUser
from [AccessRule].[AccessRule] ar
where ar.AccessRuleId = 1
Query 2
select rf.FieldName, ro.[Value]
from [AccessRule].[RuleOperation] ro
join [AccessRule].[RuleField] rf on ro.FieldId = rf.RuleFieldId
where ro.AccessRuleId = 1
I have a query is used to display information in a queue and part of that information is showing the amount of child entities (packages and labs) that belong to the parent entity (change). However instead of showing the individual counts of each type of child, they multiply with one another.
In the below case, there are supposed to be 3 labs and 18 packages, however the the multiply with one another and the output is 54 of each.
Below is the offending portion of the query.
SELECT cef.ChangeId, COUNT(pac.PackageId) AS 'Packages', COUNT(lab.LabRequestId) AS 'Labs'
FROM dbo.ChangeEvaluationForm cef
LEFT JOIN dbo.Lab
ON cef.ChangeId = Lab.ChangeId
LEFT JOIN dbo.Package pac
ON (cef.ChangeId = pac.ChangeId AND pac.PackageStatus != 6 AND pac.PackageStatus !=7)
WHERE cef.ChangeId = 255
GROUP BY cef.ChangeId
I feel like this is obvious but it's not occurring to me how to fix it so the two counts are independent of one another like to me they should be. There doesn't seem to be a scenario like this in any of my research either. Can anyone guide me in the right direction?
Because you do multiply source rows by each left join. So sometimes you have more likely cross join here.
SELECT cef.ChangeId, p.Packages, l.Labs
FROM dbo.ChangeEvaluationForm cef
OUTER APPLY(
SELECT COUNT(*) as Labs
FROM dbo.Lab
WHERE cef.ChangeId = Lab.ChangeId
) l
OUTER APPLY(
SELECT COUNT(*) AS Packages
FROM dbo.Package pac
WHERE (cef.ChangeId = pac.ChangeId AND pac.PackageStatus != 6 AND pac.PackageStatus !=7)
) p
WHERE cef.ChangeId = 255
GROUP BY cef.ChangeId
perhaps GROUP BY is not needed now.
From you question its difficult to derive what result do you expect from your query. So I presume you want following result:
+----------+----------+------+
| ChangeId | Packages | Labs |
+----------+----------+------+
| 255 | 18 | 3 |
+----------+----------+------+
Try below query if you are looking for above mentioned result.
SELECT cef.ChangeId, ISNULL(pac.PacCount, 0) AS 'Packages', ISNULL(Lab.LabCount, 0) AS 'Labs'
FROM dbo.ChangeEvaluationForm cef
LEFT JOIN (SELECT Lab.ChangeId, COUNT(*) LabCount FROM dbo.Lab GROUP BY) Lab
ON cef.ChangeId = Lab.ChangeId
LEFT JOIN (SELECT pac.ChangeId, COUNT(*) PacCount FROM dbo.Package pac WHERE pac.PackageStatus != 6 AND pac.PackageStatus !=7 GROUP BY pac.ChangeId) pac
ON cef.ChangeId = pac.ChangeId
WHERE cef.ChangeId = 255
Query Explanation:
In your query you didn't use group by, so it ended up giving you 54 as count which is Cartesian product.
In this query I tried to group by 'ChangeId' and find aggregate before joining tables. So 3 labs and 18 packages will be counted before join.
Your will also notice that I have moved PackageStatus filter before group by in pac table. So unwanted record won't mess with our count.
You start with a particular ChangeId from the dbo.ChangeEvaluationForm table (ChangeId = 255 from your example), then join to the dbo.Lab table. This join makes your result go from 1 row to 3, considering there are 3 Labs with ChangeId = 255. Your problem is on the next join, you are joining all 3 resulting rows from the previous join with the dbo.Package table, which has 18 rows for ChangeId = 255. The resulting count for columns pac.PackageId and lab.LabRequestId will then be 3 x 18 = 54.
To get what you want, there are 2 easy solutions:
Use COUNT DISTINCT instead of COUNT. This will just count the different values of pac.PackageId and lab.LabRequestId and not the repeated ones.
Split the joins into 2 subqueries and join their result (by ChangeId)
I have a value table and I need to write a case statement that touches 2 columns: Below is the example
Type State Min Max Value
A TX 2 15 100
A TX 16 30 200
A TX 31+ 500
Let say I have another table that has the following
Type State Weight Value
A TX 14 ?
So when I join the table , I need a case statement that looks at weight from table 2 , type and state - compare it to the table 1 , know that the weight falls between 2 and 15 from row 1 and update Value in table 2 with 100
Is this doable ?
Thanks
It returns 0 if there aren't rows in this range of values.
select Type, State, Weight,
(select coalesce(Value, 0)
from table_b
where table_b.Type = table_a.Type
and table_b.State = table_a.State
and table_a.Value between table_b.Min and table_b.Max) as Value
from table_a
For an Alteryx solution: (1) run both tables into a Join tool, joining on Type and State; (2) Send the output to a Filter tool where you force Weight to be between Min and Max; (3) Send that output to a Select tool, where you grab only the specific columns you want; (since the Join will give you all columns from all tables). Done.
Caveats: the data running from Join to Filter could be large, since you are joining every Type/State combination in the Lookup table to the other table. Depending on the size of your datasets, that might be cumbersome. Alteryx is very fast though, and at least we're limiting on State and Type, so if your datasets aren't too large, this simple solution will work fine.
With larger data, try to do it as part of your original select, utilizing one of the other solutions given here for your SQL query.
Considering that Min and Max columns in first table are of Integer type
You need to use INNER JOIN on ranges
SELECT *
FROM another_table a
JOIN first_table b
ON a.type = b.type
AND a.State = b.State
AND a.Weight BETWEEN b.min AND b.max