I have the code below in my query, but I don't like it.
(
(year + 1) = date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE) OR
year = date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE) OR
(year - 1) = date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)
)
Exists a better form to write this conditional? The objective of this conditional is returns the values between the post year and the before year of today.
EDIT
I want a new feature:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (alias.year) alias.year, alias.another_column
FROM scheme.table AS alias
WHERE alias.active IS TRUE AND ABS(alias.year- date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)) IN (0,1)
ORDER BY alias.year, alias.another_column DESC;
The code above returns:
I want:
2017 - 8
2018 - 1
2019 - 1
This occurs because no exists any record with year 2019, but when not exists some year, I need return him with the value 1 in another column.
Try this, the between will match values in between the low and high value.
(date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE) BETWEEN (year - 1) AND (year + 1))
EDIT:
To accomplish what you're talking about it may be easier to use a common table expression and a RIGHT OUTER JOIN the common table expression will fill with the years in the range (last year, this year, next year)
and will limit records to what is in the cte, even if records do not exist in the table for that year.
WITH RECURSIVE cte(year) AS(
VALUES (date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)-1)
UNION ALL
SELECT year+1 FROM cte WHERE year<date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)+1
)
SELECT DISTINCT ON (cte.year) alias.year, COALESCE(alias.another_column, 'value when blank') another_column
FROM scheme.table AS alias
RIGHT OUTER JOIN cte
ON alias.year = cte.year
WHERE alias.active IS TRUE
ORDER BY cte.year, alias.another_column DESC;
so records would show like this
2017 - 8
2018 - 1
2019 - value when blank
If you remove the COALESCE function it would look like this
2017 - 8
2018 - 1
2019 - NULL
EDIT:
As suggesting in comments you can also use generate_series() to create the common table expression. since date_part returns a double precision so you will have to CAST it to a integer I've used two methods so you have more options
WITH cte AS (
SELECT
generate_series(
date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)::integer-1
,CAST(date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE) AS INTEGER)+1
) AS year
)
ABS(year - date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)) IN (0,1)
Not familiar with the specifics of this DBMS but that should work :
year BETWEEN (date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)-1) AND (date_part('YEAR', CURRENT_DATE)+1)
It also reads just like your requirement, which is usually a good thing for the person who will maintain your code in the future.
Related
Having an issue in SQL script where I’m trying to achieve filter criteria of rolling 12 months in the day column which stored data as a text in server.
Goal is to count sizes for product at retail store location over the last 12 months from the current day. Currently, in my query I'm using the criteria of year 2019 which only counts the sizes for that year but not for rolling 12 months from current date.
CALENDARDAY column is in text field in the data set and data stores in yyyymmdd format.
When trying to run below script in Tableau with GETDATE and DATEADD function it is giving me a functional error. I am trying to access SAP HANA server with below query.
Any help would be appreciated
Select
SKU, STYLE_ID, Base_Style_ID, COLOR, SIZEKEY, STORE, Year,
count(SIZEKEY)over(partition by STYLE_ID,COLOR,STORE,Year) as SZ_CNT
from
(
select
a."RAW" As SKU,
a."STYLENUM" As STYLE_ID,
mat."BASENUM" AS Base_Style_ID,
a."COLORNUM" AS COLOR,
a."SIZE" AS SIZEKEY,
a."STORENUM" AS STORE,
substring(a."CALENDARDAY",1,4) As year
from PRTRPT_XRE as a
JOIN ZAT_SKU As mat On a."RAW" = mat."SKU"
where a."ORGANIZATION" = 'M20'
and a."COLORNUM" is not null
and substring(a."CALENDARDAY",1,4) = '2019'
Group BY
a."RAW",
a."STYLENUM",
mat."BASENUM",
a."ZCOLORCD",
a."SIZE",
a."STORENUM",
substring(a."CALENDARDAY",1,4)
)
I have never worked on that DB / Server, so I don't have a way to test this.
But hopefully this will work (expecting exact 12 months before today's date)
AND ADD_MONTHS (TO_DATE (a."CALENDARDAY", 'YYYY-MM-DD'), 12) > CURRENT_DATE
or
AND ADD_MONTHS (a."CALENDARDAY", 12) > CURRENT_DATE
Below condition from one of our CALENDAR table also worked same way as ADD_MONTHS mentioned in above response
select distinct CALENDARDAY
from
(
select FISCALWEEK, CALENDARDAY, CNST, row_number()over(partition by CNST order by FISCALWEEK desc) as rnum
from
(
select distinct FISCALWEEK, CALENDARDAY, 'A' as CNST
from CALENDARTABLE
where CALENDARDAY < current_date
order by 1,2
)
) where rnum < 366
I am looking for a birthdate range of march 21 to April 20, and the year doesn't matter. and it seems that when i search other months and date are coming out.
select * from AllStudentInfo Where
((MONTH(birthDate) >= 3 and day(birthDate) >= 21)
OR
(MONTH(birthDate) <= 4 and day(birthDate) <= 20))
AND
(BGRStatus = 'S' OR BGRStatus = 'SL')
Chances are that you want to discover up & coming dates. In any case, you can create a virtual date as follows:
SELECT DATEFROMPARTS (2017,month(birthDate),day(birthDate) as birthday
FROM AllStudentInfo
In this case, you can use:
SELECT *
FROM AllStudentInfo
WHERE DATEFROMPARTS (2017,month(birthDate),day(birthDate)
BETWEEN '2017-03-21' AND '2017-04-20';
The year 2017 is arbitrary. The point is that the dates in the BETWEEN clause are in the same year.
Using more modern techniques, you can combine it as follows:
WITH cte AS(
SELECT *,DATEFROMPARTS (2017,month(birthDate),day(birthDate) as birthDay
FROM AllStudentInfo
)
SELECT * FROM cte WHERE birthDay BETWEEN '2017-03-21' AND '2017-04-20';
The cte is a Common Table Expression which is an alternative to using a sub query.
Here is an alternative which is closer to the spirit of the question. You can use the format function to generate an expression which is purely month & day:
format(birthDate,'MM-dd')
The MM is MSSQL’s way of saying the 2-digit month number, and dd is the 2-digit day of the month.
This way you can use:
format(birthDate,'MM-dd') BETWEEN '03-21' AND '04-20'
Again as a CTE:
WITH cte AS(
SELECT *,format(birthDate,'MM-dd') as birthDay
FROM AllStudentInfo
)
SELECT * FROM cte WHERE birthDay BETWEEN '03-21' AND '04-20';
You should get the same results, but the year is completely ignored.
Switch your statement to AND
Like so
select * from AllStudentInfo Where
((MONTH(birthDate) >= 3 and day(birthDate) >= 21)
AND --Make the change here
(MONTH(birthDate) <= 4 and day(birthDate) <= 20))
AND
(BGRStatus = 'S' OR BGRStatus = 'SL')
Using OR you are querying anything that is in that date range OR that month range. And therefore, you would get results from other every months.
i have the following table RENTAL(book_date, copy_id, member_id, title_id, act_ret_date, exp_ret_date). Where book_date shows the day the book was booked. I need to write a query that for every day of the month(so from 1-30 or from 1-29 or from 1-31 depending on month) it shows me the number of books booked.
i currently know how to show the number of books rented in the days that are in the table
select count(book_date), to_char(book_date,'DD')
from rental
group by to_char(book_date,'DD');
my questions are:
How do i show the rest of the days(if let's say for some reason in my database i have no books rented on 20th or 19th or multiple days) and put the number 0 there?
How do i show the number of days only of the current month so(28,29,30,31 all these 4 are possible depending on month or year)... i am lost . This must be done using only SQL query no pl/SQL or other stuff.
The following query would give you all days in the current month, in your case you can replace SYSDATE with your date column and join with this query to know how many for a given month
SELECT DT
FROM(
SELECT TRUNC (last_day(SYSDATE) - ROWNUM) dt
FROM DUAL CONNECT BY ROWNUM < 32
)
where DT >= trunc(sysdate,'mm')
The answer is to create a table like this:
table yearsmonthsdays (year varchar(4), month varchar(2), day varchar(2));
use any language you wish, e.g. iterate in java with Calendar.getInstance().getActualMaximum(Calendar.DAY_OF_MONTH) to get the last day of the month for as many years and months as you like, and fill that table with the year, month and days from 1 to last day of month of your result.
you'd get something like:
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1995','02','01');
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1995','02','02');
...
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1995','02','28'); /* non-leap year */
...
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1996','02','01');
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1996','02','02');
...
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1996','02','28');
insert into yearsmonthsdays ('1996','02','29'); /* leap year */
...
and so on.
Once you have this table done, your work is almost finished. Make an outer left join between your table and this table, joining year, month and day together, and when no lines appear, the count will be zero as you wish. Without using programming, this is your best bet.
In oracle, you can query from dual and use the conncect by level syntax to generate a series of rows - in your case, dates. From there on, it's just a matter of deciding what dates you want to display (in my example I used all the dates from 2014) and joining on your table:
SELECT all_date, COALESCE (cnt, 0)
FROM (SELECT to_date('01/01/2014', 'dd/mm/yyyy') + rownum - 1 AS all_date
FROM dual
CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 365) d
LEFT JOIN (SELECT TRUNC(book_date), COUNT(book_date) AS cnt
FROM rental
GROUP BY book_date) r ON d.all_date = TRUNC(r.book_date)
There's no need to get ROWNUM involved ... you can just use LEVEL in the CONNECT BY:
WITH d1 AS (
SELECT TRUNC(SYSDATE, 'MONTH') - 1 + LEVEL AS book_date
FROM dual
CONNECT BY TRUNC(SYSDATE, 'MONTH') - 1 + LEVEL <= LAST_DAY(SYSDATE)
)
SELECT TRUNC(d1.book_date), COUNT(r.book_date)
FROM d1 LEFT JOIN rental r
ON TRUNC(d1.book_date) = TRUNC(r.book_date)
GROUP BY TRUNC(d1.book_date);
Simply replace SYSDATE with a date in the month you're targeting for results.
All days of the month based on current date
select trunc(sysdate) - (to_number(to_char(sysdate,'DD')) - 1)+level-1 x from dual connect by level <= TO_CHAR(LAST_DAY(sysdate),'DD')
It did works to me:
SELECT DT
FROM (SELECT TRUNC(LAST_DAY(SYSDATE) - (CASE WHEN ROWNUM=1 THEN 0 ELSE ROWNUM-1 END)) DT
FROM DUAL
CONNECT BY ROWNUM <= 32)
WHERE DT >= TRUNC(SYSDATE, 'MM')
In Oracle SQL the query must look like this to not miss the last day of month:
SELECT DT
FROM(
SELECT trunc(add_months(sysdate, 1),'MM')- ROWNUM dt
FROM DUAL CONNECT BY ROWNUM < 32
)
where DT >= trunc(sysdate,'mm')
I have a Postgres table that I'm trying to analyze based on some date columns.
I'm basically trying to count the number of rows in my table that fulfill this requirement, and then group them by month and year. Instead of my query looking like this:
SELECT * FROM $TABLE WHERE date1::date <= '2012-05-31'
and date2::date > '2012-05-31';
it should be able to display this for the months available in my data so that I don't have to change the months manually every time I add new data, and so I can get everything with one query.
In the case above I'd like it to group the sum of rows which fit the criteria into the year 2012 and month 05. Similarly, if my WHERE clause looked like this:
date1::date <= '2012-06-31' and date2::date > '2012-06-31'
I'd like it to group this sum into the year 2012 and month 06.
This isn't entirely clear to me:
I'd like it to group the sum of rows
I'll interpret it this way: you want to list all rows "per month" matching the criteria:
WITH x AS (
SELECT date_trunc('month', min(date1)) AS start
,date_trunc('month', max(date2)) + interval '1 month' AS stop
FROM tbl
)
SELECT to_char(y.mon, 'YYYY-MM') AS mon, t.*
FROM (
SELECT generate_series(x.start, x.stop, '1 month') AS mon
FROM x
) y
LEFT JOIN tbl t ON t.date1::date <= y.mon
AND t.date2::date > y.mon -- why the explicit cast to date?
ORDER BY y.mon, t.date1, t.date2;
Assuming date2 >= date1.
Compute lower and upper border of time period and truncate to month (adding 1 to upper border to include the last row, too.
Use generate_series() to create the set of months in question
LEFT JOIN rows from your table with the declared criteria and sort by month.
You could also GROUP BY at this stage to calculate aggregates ..
Here is the reasoning. First, create a list of all possible dates. Then get the cumulative number of date1 up to a given date. Then get the cumulative number of date2 after the date and subtract the results. The following query does this using correlated subqueries (not my favorite construct, but handy in this case):
select thedate,
(select count(*) from t where date1::date <= d.thedate) -
(select count(*) from t where date2::date > d.thedate)
from (select distinct thedate
from ((select date1::date as thedate from t) union all
(select date2::date as thedate from t)
) d
) d
This is assuming that date2 occurs after date1. My model is start and stop dates of customers. If this isn't the case, the query might not work.
It sounds like you could benefit from the DATEPART T-SQL method. If I understand you correctly, you could do something like this:
SELECT DATEPART(year, date1) Year, DATEPART(month, date1) Month, SUM(value_col)
FROM $Table
-- WHERE CLAUSE ?
GROUP BY DATEPART(year, date1),
DATEPART(month, date1)
many queries are by week, month or quarter when the base table date is either date or timestamp.
in general, in group by queries, does it matter whether using
- functions on the date
- a day table that has extraction pre-calculated
note: similar question as DATE lookup table (1990/01/01:2041/12/31)
for example, in postgresql
create table sale(
tran_id serial primary key,
tran_dt date not null default current_date,
sale_amt decimal(8,2) not null,
...
);
create table days(
day date primary key,
week date not null,
month date not null,
quarter date non null
);
-- week query 1: group using funcs
select
date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1 as week,
count(1) as sale_ct,
sum(sale_amt) as sale_amt
from sale
where date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1 between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
group by date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1
order by 1;
-- query 2: group using days
select
days.week,
count(1) as sale_ct,
sum(sale_amt) as sale_amt
from sale
join days on( days.day = sale.tran_dt )
where week between '2011-1-1'::date and '2011-12-31'::date
group by week
order by week;
to me, whereas the date_trunc() function seems more organic, the the days table is easier to use.
is there anything here more than a matter of taste?
-- query 3: group using instant "immediate" calendar table
WITH calender AS (
SELECT ser::date AS dd
, date_trunc('week', ser)::date AS wk
-- , date_trunc('month', ser)::date AS mon
-- , date_trunc('quarter', ser)::date AS qq
FROM generate_series( '2012-1-1' , '2012-12-31', '1 day'::interval) ser
)
SELECT
cal.wk
, count(1) as sale_ct
, sum(sa.sale_amt) as sale_amt
FROM sale sa
JOIN calender cal ON cal.dd = sa.tran_dt
-- WHERE week between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY cal.wk
ORDER BY cal.wk
;
Note: I fixed an apparent typo in the BETWEEN range.
UPDATE: I used Erwin's recursive CTE to squeeze out the duplicated date_trunc(). Nested CTE galore:
WITH calendar AS (
WITH RECURSIVE montag AS (
SELECT '2011-01-01'::date AS dd
UNION ALL
SELECT dd + 1 AS dd
FROM montag
WHERE dd < '2012-1-1'::date
)
SELECT mo.dd, date_trunc('week', mo.dd + 1)::date AS wk
FROM montag mo
)
SELECT
cal.wk
, count(1) as sale_ct
, sum(sa.sale_amt) as sale_amt
FROM sale sa
JOIN calendar cal ON cal.dd = sa.tran_dt
-- WHERE week between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY cal.wk
ORDER BY cal.wk
;
Yes, it is more than a matter of taste. The performance of the query depends on the method.
As a first approximation, the functions should be faster. They don't require joins, doing the read in a single table scan.
However, a good optimizer could make effective use of a lookup table. It would know the distribution of the target values. And, an in memory join could be quite fast.
As a database design, I think having a calendar table is very useful. Some information such as holidays just isn't going to work as a function. However, for most ad hoc queries the date functions are fine.
1. Your expression:
... between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
doesn't work. Basic BETWEEN requires the left argument to be less than or equal to the right argument. Would have to be:
... BETWEEN SYMMETRIC '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
Or it's just a typo and you mean something like:
... BETWEEN '2011-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
It's unclear to me, what your queries are supposed to retrieve. I'll assume you want all weeks (Monday to Sunday) that start in 2011 for the rest of this answer. This expression generates exactly that in less than a microsecond on modern hardware (works for any year):
SELECT generate_series(
date_trunc('week','2010-12-31'::date) + interval '7d'
,date_trunc('week','2011-12-31'::date) + interval '6d'
, '1d')::date
*Note that the ISO 8601 definition of the "first week of a year is slightly different.
2. Your second query does not work at all. No GROUP BY?
3. The question you link to did not deal with PostgreSQL, which has outstanding date / timestamp support. And it has generate_series() which can obviate the need for a separate "days" table in most cases - as demonstrated above. Your query would look like this:
In the meantime #wildplasser provided an example query that was supposed to go here.
By popular* demand, a recursive CTE version - which is actually not that far from being a serious alternative!
* and by "popular" I mean #wildplasser's very serious request.
WITH RECURSIVE days AS (
SELECT '2011-01-01'::date AS dd
,date_trunc('week', '2011-01-01'::date )::date AS wk
UNION ALL
SELECT dd + 1
,date_trunc('week', dd + 1)::date AS wk
FROM days
WHERE dd < '2011-12-31'::date
)
SELECT d.wk
,count(*) AS sale_ct
,sum(s.sale_amt) AS sale_amt
FROM days d
JOIN sale s ON s.tran_dt = d.dd
-- WHERE d.wk between '2011-01-01' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY 1
ORDER BY 1;
Could also be written as (compare to #wildplasser's version):
WITH RECURSIVE d AS (
SELECT '2011-01-01'::date AS dd
UNION ALL
SELECT dd + 1 FROM d WHERE dd < '2011-12-31'::date
), days AS (
SELECT dd, date_trunc('week', dd + 1)::date AS wk
FROM d
)
SELECT ...
4. If performance is of the essence, just make sure, that you do not apply functions or calculations to the values of your table. This prohibits the use of indexes and is generally very slow, because every row has to be processed. That's why your first query is going to suck with big table. When ever possible, apply calculations to the values you filter with, instead.
Indexes on expressions are one way around this. If you had an index like
CREATE INDEX sale_tran_dt_week_idx ON sale (date_trunc('week', tran_dt)::date);
.. your first query could be very fast again - at some cost for write operations for index maintenance.