Edit: Added another case scenario in the notes and updated the sample attachment.
I am trying to write a sql to get an output attached with this question along with sample data.
There are two table, one with distinct ID's (pk) with their current flag.
another with Active ID (fk to the pk from the first table) and Inactive ID (fk to the pk from the first table)
Final output should return two columns, first column consist of all distinct ID's from the first table and second column should contain Active ID from the 2nd table.
Below is the sql:
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#main') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE #main;
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#merges') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE #merges
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#final') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE #final
SELECT DISTINCT id,
current
INTO #main
FROM tb_ID t1
--get list of all active_id and inactive_id
SELECT DISTINCT active_id,
inactive_id,
Update_dt
INTO #merges
FROM tb_merges
-- Combine where the id from the main table matched to the inactive_id (should return all the rows from #main)
SELECT id,
active_id AS merged_to_id
INTO #final
FROM (SELECT t1.*,
t2.active_id,
Update_dt ,
Row_number()
OVER (
partition BY id, active_id
ORDER BY Update_dt DESC) AS rn
FROM #main t1
LEFT JOIN #merges t2
ON t1.id = t2.inactive_id) t3
WHERE rn = 1
SELECT *
FROM #final
This sql partially works. It doesn't work, where the id was once active then gets inactive.
Please note:
the active ID should return the last most active ID
the ID which doesn't have any active ID should either be null or the ID itself
ID where the current = 0, in those cases active ID should be the ID current in tb_ID
ID's may get interchanged. For example there are two ID's 6 and 7, when 6 is active 7 is inactive and vice versa. the only way to know the most current active state is by the update date
Attached sample might be easy to understand
Looks like I might have to use recursive cte for achieiving the results. Can someone please help?
thank you for your time!
I think you're correct that a recursive CTE looks like a good solution for this. I'm not entirely certain that I've understood exactly what you're asking for, particularly with regard to the update_dt column, just because the data is a little abstract as-is, but I've taken a stab at it, and it does seem to work with your sample data. The comments explain what's going on.
declare #tb_id table (id bigint, [current] bit);
declare #tb_merges table (active_id bigint, inactive_id bigint, update_dt datetime2);
insert #tb_id values
-- Sample data from the question.
(1, 1),
(2, 1),
(3, 1),
(4, 1),
(5, 0),
-- A few additional data to illustrate a deeper search.
(6, 1),
(7, 1),
(8, 1),
(9, 1),
(10, 1);
insert #tb_merges values
-- Sample data from the question.
(3, 1, '2017-01-11T13:09:00'),
(1, 2, '2017-01-11T13:07:00'),
(5, 4, '2013-12-31T14:37:00'),
(4, 5, '2013-01-18T15:43:00'),
-- A few additional data to illustrate a deeper search.
(6, 7, getdate()),
(7, 8, getdate()),
(8, 9, getdate()),
(9, 10, getdate());
if object_id('tempdb..#ValidMerge') is not null
drop table #ValidMerge;
-- Get the subset of merge records whose active_id identifies a "current" id and
-- rank by date so we can consider only the latest merge record for each active_id.
with ValidMergeCTE as
(
select
M.active_id,
M.inactive_id,
[Priority] = row_number() over (partition by M.active_id order by M.update_dt desc)
from
#tb_merges M
inner join #tb_id I on M.active_id = I.id
where
I.[current] = 1
)
select
active_id,
inactive_id
into
#ValidMerge
from
ValidMergeCTE
where
[Priority] = 1;
-- Here's the recursive CTE, which draws on the subset of merges identified above.
with SearchCTE as
(
-- Base case: any record whose active_id is not used as an inactive_id is an endpoint.
select
M.active_id,
M.inactive_id,
Depth = 0
from
#ValidMerge M
where
not exists (select 1 from #ValidMerge M2 where M.active_id = M2.inactive_id)
-- Recursive case: look for records whose active_id matches the inactive_id of a previously
-- identified record.
union all
select
S.active_id,
M.inactive_id,
Depth = S.Depth + 1
from
#ValidMerge M
inner join SearchCTE S on M.active_id = S.inactive_id
)
select
I.id,
S.active_id
from
#tb_id I
left join SearchCTE S on I.id = S.inactive_id;
Results:
id active_id
------------------
1 3
2 3
3 NULL
4 NULL
5 4
6 NULL
7 6
8 6
9 6
10 6
Related
I have a table as shown in the screenshot (first two columns) and I need to create a column like the last one. I'm trying to calculate the length of each sequence of consecutive values for each id.
For this, the last column is required. I played around with
row_number() over (partition by id, value)
but did not have much success, since the circled number was (quite predictably) computed as 2 instead of 1.
Please help!
First of all, we need to have a way to defined how the rows are ordered. For example, in your sample data there is not way to be sure that 'first' row (1, 1) will be always displayed before the 'second' row (1,0).
That's why in my sample data I have added an identity column. In your real case, the details can be order by row ID, date column or something else, but you need to ensure the rows can be sorted via unique criteria.
So, the task is pretty simple:
calculate trigger switch - when value is changed
calculate groups
calculate rows
That's it. I have used common table expression and leave all columns in order to be easy for you to understand the logic. You are free to break this in separate statements and remove some of the columns.
DECLARE #DataSource TABLE
(
[RowID] INT IDENTITY(1, 1)
,[ID]INT
,[value] INT
);
INSERT INTO #DataSource ([ID], [value])
VALUES (1, 1)
,(1, 0)
,(1, 0)
,(1, 1)
,(1, 1)
,(1, 1)
--
,(2, 0)
,(2, 1)
,(2, 0)
,(2, 0);
WITH DataSourceWithSwitch AS
(
SELECT *
,IIF(LAG([value]) OVER (PARTITION BY [ID] ORDER BY [RowID]) = [value], 0, 1) AS [Switch]
FROM #DataSource
), DataSourceWithGroup AS
(
SELECT *
,SUM([Switch]) OVER (PARTITION BY [ID] ORDER BY [RowID]) AS [Group]
FROM DataSourceWithSwitch
)
SELECT *
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY [ID], [Group] ORDER BY [RowID]) AS [GroupRowID]
FROM DataSourceWithGroup
ORDER BY [RowID];
You want results that are dependent on actual data ordering in the data source. In SQL you operate on relations, sometimes on ordered set of relations rows. Your desired end result is not well-defined in terms of SQL, unless you introduce an additional column in your source table, over which your data is ordered (e.g. auto-increment or some timestamp column).
Note: this answers the original question and doesn't take into account additional timestamp column mentioned in the comment. I'm not updating my answer since there is already an accepted answer.
One way to solve it could be through a recursive CTE:
create table #tmp (i int identity,id int, value int, rn int);
insert into #tmp (id,value) VALUES
(1,1),(1,0),(1,0),(1,1),(1,1),(1,1),
(2,0),(2,1),(2,0),(2,0);
WITH numbered AS (
SELECT i,id,value, 1 seq FROM #tmp WHERE i=1 UNION ALL
SELECT a.i,a.id,a.value, CASE WHEN a.id=b.id AND a.value=b.value THEN b.seq+1 ELSE 1 END
FROM #tmp a INNER JOIN numbered b ON a.i=b.i+1
)
SELECT * FROM numbered -- OPTION (MAXRECURSION 1000)
This will return the following:
i id value seq
1 1 1 1
2 1 0 1
3 1 0 2
4 1 1 1
5 1 1 2
6 1 1 3
7 2 0 1
8 2 1 1
9 2 0 1
10 2 0 2
See my little demo here: https://rextester.com/ZZEIU93657
A prerequisite for the CTE to work is a sequenced table (e. g. a table with an identitycolumn in it) as a source. In my example I introduced the column i for this. As a starting point I need to find the first entry of the source table. In my case this was the entry with i=1.
For a longer source table you might run into a recursion-limit error as the default for MAXRECURSION is 100. In this case you should uncomment the OPTION setting behind my SELECT clause above. You can either set it to a higher value (like shown) or switch it off completely by setting it to 0.
IMHO, this is easier to do with cursor and loop.
may be there is a way to do the job with selfjoin
declare #t table (id int, val int)
insert into #t (id, val)
select 1 as id, 1 as val
union all select 1, 0
union all select 1, 0
union all select 1, 1
union all select 1, 1
union all select 1, 1
;with cte1 (id , val , num ) as
(
select id, val, row_number() over (ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) as num from #t
)
, cte2 (id, val, num, N) as
(
select id, val, num, 1 from cte1 where num = 1
union all
select t1.id, t1.val, t1.num,
case when t1.id=t2.id and t1.val=t2.val then t2.N + 1 else 1 end
from cte1 t1 inner join cte2 t2 on t1.num = t2.num + 1 where t1.num > 1
)
select * from cte2
As the database is currently constructed, I can only use a Date Field of a certain table in a datediff-function that is also part of a count aggregation (not the date field, but that entity where that date field is not null. The group by in the end messes up the counting, since the one entry is counted on it's own / as it's own group.
In some detail:
Our lead recruiter want's a report that shows the sum of applications, and conducted interviews per opening. So far no problem. Additionally he likes to see the total duration per opening from making it public to signing a new employee per opening and of cause only if the opening could already be filled.
I have 4 tables to join:
table 1 holds the data of the opening
table 2 has the single applications
table 3 has the interview data of the applications
table 4 has the data regarding the publication of the openings (with the date when a certain opening was made public)
The problem is the duration requirement. table 4 holds the starting point and in table 2 one (or none) applicant per opening has a date field filled with the time he returned a signed contract and therefor the opening counts as filled. When I use that field in a datediff I'm forced to also put that column in the group by clause and that results in 2 row per opening. 1 row has all the numbers as wanted and in the second row there is always that one person who has a entry in that date field...
So far I haven't come far in thinking of a way of avoiding that problem except for explanining to the colleague that he get's his time-to-fill number in another report.
SELECT
table1.col1 as NameOfProject,
table1.col2 as Company,
table1.col3 as OpeningType,
table1.col4 as ReasonForOpening,
count (table2.col2) as NumberOfApplications,
sum (case when table2.colSTATUS = 'withdrawn' then 1 else 0 end) as mberOfApplicantsWhoWithdraw,
sum (case when table3.colTypeInterview = 'PhoneInterview' then 1 else 0 end) as NumberOfPhoneInterview,
...more sum columns...,
table1.finished, // shows „1“ if opening is occupied
DATEDIFF(day, table4.colValidFrom, **table2.colContractReceived**) as DaysToCompletion
FROM
table2 left join table3 on table2.REF_NR = table3.REF_NR
join table1 on table2.PROJEKT = table1.KBEZ
left join table4 on table1.REFNR = table4.PRJ_REFNR
GROUP BY
**table2.colContractReceived**
and all other columns except the ones in aggregate (sum and count) functions go in the GROUP BY section
ORDER BY table1.NameOfProject
Here is a short rebuild of what it looks like. First a row where the opening is not filled and all aggregations come out in one row as wanted. The next project/opening shows up double, because the field used in the datediff is grouped independently...
project company; no_of_applications; no_of_phoneinterview; no_of_personalinterview; ... ; time_to_fill_in_days; filled?
2018_312 comp a 27 4 2 null 0
2018_313 comp b 54 7 4 null 0
2018_313 comp b 1 1 1 42 1
I'd be glad to get any idea how to solve this. Thanks for considering my request!
(During the 'translation' of all the specific column and table names I might have build in a syntax error here and there but the query worked well ecxept for that unwanted extra aggregation per filled opening)
If I've understood your requirement properly, I believe the issue you are having is that you need to show the date between the starting point and the time at which an applicant responded to an opening, however this must only show a single row based on whether or not the position was filled (if the position was filled, then show that row, if not then show that row).
I've achieved this result by assuming that you count a position as filled using the "ContractsRecevied" column. This may be wrong however the principle should still provide what you are looking for.
I've essentially wrapped your query in to a subquery, performed a rank ordering by the contractsfilled column descending and partitioned by the project. Then in the outer query I filter for the first instance of this ranking.
Even if my assumption about the column structure and data types is wrong, this should provide you with a model to work with.
The only issue you might have with this ranking solution is if you want to aggregate over both rows within one (so include all of the summed columns for both the position filled and position not filled row per project). If this is the case let me know and we can work around that.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
declare #table1 table (
REFNR int,
NameOfProject nvarchar(20),
Company nvarchar(20),
OpeningType nvarchar(20),
ReasonForOpening nvarchar(20),
KBEZ int
);
declare #table2 table (
NumberOfApplications int,
Status nvarchar(15),
REF_NR int,
ReturnedApplicationDate datetime,
ContractsReceived bit,
PROJEKT int
);
declare #table3 table (
TypeInterview nvarchar(25),
REF_NR int
);
declare #table4 table (
PRJ_REFNR int,
StartingPoint datetime
);
insert into #table1 (REFNR, NameOfProject, Company, OpeningType, ReasonForOpening, KBEZ)
values (1, '2018_312', 'comp a' ,'Permanent', 'Business growth', 1),
(2, '2018_313', 'comp a', 'Permanent', 'Business growth', 2),
(3, '2018_313', 'comp a', 'Permanent', 'Business growth', 3);
insert into #table2 (NumberOfApplications, Status, REF_NR, ReturnedApplicationDate, ContractsReceived, PROJEKT)
values (27, 'Processed', 4, '2018-04-01 08:00', 0, 1),
(54, 'Withdrawn', 5, '2018-04-02 10:12', 0, 2),
(1, 'Processed', 6, '2018-04-15 15:00', 1, 3);
insert into #table3 (TypeInterview, REF_NR)
values ('Phone', 4),
('Phone', 5),
('Personal', 6);
insert into #table4 (PRJ_REFNR, StartingPoint)
values (1, '2018-02-25 08:00'),
(2, '2018-03-04 15:00'),
(3, '2018-03-04 15:00');
select * from
(
SELECT
RANK()OVER(Partition by NameOfProject, Company order by ContractsReceived desc) as rowno,
table1. NameOfProject,
table1.Company,
table1.OpeningType,
table1.ReasonForOpening,
case when ContractsReceived >0 then datediff(DAY, StartingPoint, ReturnedApplicationDate) else null end as TimeToFillInDays,
ContractsReceived Filled
FROM
#table2 table2 left join #table3 table3 on table2.REF_NR = table3.REF_NR
join #table1 table1 on table2.PROJEKT = table1.KBEZ
left join #table4 table4 on table1.REFNR = table4.PRJ_REFNR
group by NameOfProject, Company, OpeningType, ReasonForOpening, ContractsReceived,
StartingPoint, ReturnedApplicationDate
) x where rowno=1
I am trying to run below 2 queries on the same table and hoping to get results in 2 different columns.
Query 1: select ID as M from table where field = 1
returns:
1
2
3
Query 2: select ID as N from table where field = 2
returns:
4
5
6
My goal is to get
Column1 - Column2
-----------------
1 4
2 5
3 6
Any suggestions? I am using SQL Server 2008 R2
Thanks
There has to be a primary key to foreign key relationship to JOIN data between two tables.
That is the idea about relational algebra and normalization. Otherwise, the correlation of the data is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
The CROSS JOIN will give you all possibilities. (1,4), (1,5), (1, 6) ... (3,6). I do not think that is what you want.
You can always use a ROW_NUMBER() OVER () function to generate a surrogate key in both tables. Order the data the way you want inside the OVER () clause. However, this is still not in any Normal form.
In short. Why do this?
Quick test database. Stores products from sporting goods and home goods using non-normal form.
The results of the SELECT do not mean anything.
-- Just play
use tempdb;
go
-- Drop table
if object_id('abnormal_form') > 0
drop table abnormal_form
go
-- Create table
create table abnormal_form
(
Id int,
Category int,
Name varchar(50)
);
-- Load store products
insert into abnormal_form values
(1, 1, 'Bike'),
(2, 1, 'Bat'),
(3, 1, 'Ball'),
(4, 2, 'Pot'),
(5, 2, 'Pan'),
(6, 2, 'Spoon');
-- Sporting Goods
select * from abnormal_form where Category = 1
-- Home Goods
select * from abnormal_form where Category = 2
-- Does not mean anything to me
select Id1, Id2 from
(select ROW_NUMBER () OVER (ORDER BY ID) AS Rid1, Id as Id1
from abnormal_form where Category = 1) as s
join
(select ROW_NUMBER () OVER (ORDER BY ID) AS Rid2, Id as Id2
from abnormal_form where Category = 2) as h
on s.Rid1 = h.Rid2
We definitely need more information from the user.
I am using Lucene to perform queries on a subset of SQL data which returns me a scored list of RecordIDs, e.g. 11,4,5,25,30 .
I want to use this list to retrieve a set of results from the full SQL Table by RecordIDs.
So SELECT * FROM MyFullRecord
where RecordID in (11,5,3,25,30)
I would like the retrieved list to maintain the scored order.
I can do it by using an Order by like so;
ORDER BY (CASE WHEN RecordID = 11 THEN 0
WHEN RecordID = 5 THEN 1
WHEN RecordID = 3 THEN 2
WHEN RecordID = 25 THEN 3
WHEN RecordID = 30 THEN 4
END)
I am concerned with the loading of the server loading especially if I am passing long lists of RecordIDs. Does anyone have experience of this or how can I determine an optimum list length.
Are there any other ways to achieve this functionality in MSSQL?
Roger
You can record your list into a table or table variable with sorting priorities.
And then join your table with this sorting one.
DECLARE TABLE #tSortOrder (RecordID INT, SortOrder INT)
INSERT INTO #tSortOrder (RecordID, SortOrder)
SELECT 11, 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 2 UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 3 UNION ALL
SELECT 25, 4 UNION ALL
SELECT 30, 5
SELECT *
FROM yourTable T
LEFT JOIN #tSortOrder S ON T.RecordID = S.RecordID
ORDER BY S.SortOrder
Instead of creating a searched order by statement, you could create an in memory table to join. It's easier on the eyes and definitely scales better.
SQL Statement
SELECT mfr.*
FROM MyFullRecord mfr
INNER JOIN (
SELECT *
FROM (VALUES (1, 11),
(2, 5),
(3, 3),
(4, 25),
(5, 30)
) q(ID, RecordID)
) q ON q.RecordID = mfr.RecordID
ORDER BY
q.ID
Look here for a fiddle
Something like:
SELECT * FROM MyFullRecord where RecordID in (11,5,3,25,30)
ORDER BY
CHARINDEX(','+CAST(RecordID AS varchar)+',',
','+'11,5,3,25,30'+',')
SQLFiddle demo
I have 3 tables:
recipe:
id, name
ingredient:
id, name
recipeingredient:
id, recipeId, ingredientId, quantity
Every time, a customer creates a new recipe, I need to check the recipeingredient table to verify if this recipe exists or not. If ingredientId and quantity are exactly the same, I will tell the customer the recipe already exists. Since I need to check multiple rows, need help to write this query.
Knowing your ingredients and quantities, you can do something like this:
select recipeId as ExistingRecipeID
from recipeingredient
where (ingredientId = 1 and quantity = 1)
or (ingredientId = 8 and quantity = 1)
or (ingredientId = 13 and quantity = 1)
group by recipeId
having count(*) = 3 --must match # of ingeredients in WHERE clause
I originally thought that the following query would find pairs of recipes that have exactly the same ingredients:
select ri1.recipeId, ri2.recipeId
from RecipeIngredient ri1 full outer join
RecipeIngredient ri2
on ri1.ingredientId = ri2.ingredientId and
ri1.quantity = ri2.quantity and
ri1.recipeId < ri2.recipeId
group by ri1.recipeId, ri2.recipeId
having count(ri1.id) = count(ri2.id) and -- same number of ingredients
count(ri1.id) = count(*) and -- all r1 ingredients are present
count(*) = count(ri2.id) -- all r2 ingredents are present
However, this query doesn't count things correctly, because the mismatches don't have the right pairs of ids. Alas.
The following does do the correct comparison. It counts the ingredients in each recipe before the join, so this value can just be compared on all matching rows.
select ri1.recipeId, ri2.recipeId
from (select ri.*, COUNT(*) over (partition by recipeid) as numingredients
from #RecipeIngredient ri
) ri1 full outer join
(select ri.*, COUNT(*) over (partition by recipeid) as numingredients
from #RecipeIngredient ri
) ri2
on ri1.ingredientId = ri2.ingredientId and
ri1.quantity = ri2.quantity and
ri1.recipeId < ri2.recipeId
group by ri1.recipeId, ri2.recipeId
having max(ri1.numingredients) = max(ri2.numingredients) and
max(ri1.numingredients) = count(*)
The having clause guarantees that each recipe that the same number of ingredients, and that the number of matching ingredients is the total. This time, I've tested it on the following data:
insert into #recipeingredient select 1, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 1, 2, 10
insert into #recipeingredient select 2, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 2, 2, 10
insert into #recipeingredient select 2, 3, 10
insert into #recipeingredient select 3, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 4, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 4, 3, 10
insert into #recipeingredient select 5, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 5, 2, 10
If you have a new recipe, you can modify this query to just look for the recipe in one of the tables (say ri1) using an additional condition on the on clause.
If you place the ingredients in a temporary table, you can substitute one of these tables, say ri1, with the new table.
You might try something like this to find if you have a duplicate:
-- Setup test data
declare #recipeingredient table (
id int not null primary key identity
, recipeId int not null
, ingredientId int not null
, quantity int not null
)
insert into #recipeingredient select 1, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 1, 2, 10
insert into #recipeingredient select 2, 1, 1
insert into #recipeingredient select 2, 2, 10
-- Actual Query
if exists (
select *
from #recipeingredient old
full outer join #recipeingredient new
on old.recipeId != new.recipeId -- Different recipes
and old.ingredientId = new.ingredientId -- but same ingredients
and old.quantity = new.quantity -- and same quantities
where old.id is null -- Match not found
or new.id is null -- Match not found
)
begin
select cast(0 as bit) as IsDuplicateRecipe
end
else begin
select cast(1 as bit) as IsDuplicateRecipe
end
Since this is really only searching for a duplicate, you might want to substitute a temp table or pass a table variable for the "new" table. This way you wouldn't have to insert the new records before doing your search. You could also insert into the base tables, wrap the whole thing in a transaction and rollback based upon the results.