Hope you are doing well and help me with below query about BAQ.
Please see example below - current results
+-------+------+--------------+------+
| Order | Part | Ship By Date | Wave |
+-------+------+--------------+------+
| 1231 | A | 11/04/2018 | 333 |
| 1231 | A | 11/04/2018 | 257 |
| 2522 | C | 11/04/2018 | 333 |
| 2556 | A | 11/04/2018 | 0 |
+-------+------+--------------+------+
I need to find the way using calculated fields or other options in BAQ to see only one wave no. for each order line. Something like show me top wave when ship by date and order no. are the same else 0 end
+-------+------+--------------+------+
| Order | Part | Ship By Date | Wave |
+-------+------+--------------+------+
| 1231 | A | 11/04/2018 | 333 |
| 2522 | C | 11/04/2018 | 333 |
| 2556 | A | 11/04/2018 | 0 |
+-------+------+--------------+------+
Hope you will be able to help, many thanks in advance.
Hopefully this idea helps.
In Epicor 10, you should be able to create a Common Table Expression (CTE).
From your example, I would create 2 CTEs. One for each of the result sets. For the second CTE, select MAX(Order) group by Ship By Date.
Next, create a new TopLevel to join both CTEs on Order number to obtain your desired results.
I don't have Epicor 10 readily available to me, but I had achieved something like this by creating subqueries.
You will need to utilize (what I believe Epicor calles) inner queries. You inner subquery will be need to be set as a Top option with a sort option of wave descending and returning the four fields listed in your example. You will then join the table to itself with the order, part, and shipby fields as the key values. This should work.
If you have access to an instance of SSMS, you could try something like:
SELECT DISTINCT Order, Part, ShipByDate, Wave
FROM [Table] t
WHERE Wave = (SELECT TOP 1 WAVE FROM [Table] t2 WHERE t.Order = t2.Order and t.Part = t2.Part and t.ShipByDate = t2.ShipByDate ORDER BY Wave DESC)
Related
I am trying to build a table that will be used as a conversion chart. I aim to make a simple join with this conversion table on multiple fields (8 in my case), and get a result. I will try to simplify the examples as much as I can because the original chart is a 40x10 matrix.
Let's say that I have these two (I know they don't make much sense and have bad design but they are just examples):
supply_conversion_chart
---
supply (integer)
customer_id (integer)
product_id (integer)
size (varchar)
purchase_type (varchar)
purchases
---
customer_id (integer)
product_id (integer)
size (varchar)
purchase_type (varchar)
and conversion chart would look something like this:
| supply | customer_id | product_id | size | purchase_type |
|--------|--------------|------------|----------|---------------|
| 100 | 1 | anything | anything | online |
| 101 | 1 | anything | anything | offline |
| 102 | other than 1 | anything | anything | online |
| 103 | 1 | 5 | XXL | online |
The main goal was to get an exact supply value by simply doing a join by doing something like:
SELECT supply
FROM purchases p
JOIN supply_conversion_chart scc ON
p.customer_id = scc.customer_id AND
p.product_id = scc.product_id AND
p.size = scc.size AND
p.purchase_type = scc.purchase_type;
Let's say that these are the records on purchases table:
| customer_id | product_id | size | purchase_type |
|-------------|------------|------|---------------|
| 1 | 3 | M | online |
| 1 | 5 | S | offline |
| 12345 | 4 | XL | online |
| 1 | 5 | XXL | online |
| 4353 | null | M | online |
I would expect first record's supply value to be 101, second record's to be 102, third 102, fourth 103, and fifth to be 102. However, as far as I know, SQL won't be able to do a proper join on all of these records except the fourth one, which is fully matching with supply 103 on supply_conversion_chart table. I don't know if it is possible in the first place to do a join using multiple fields when some of those fields are not fully matching.
My approach is probably faulty and there are better ways to get the results I am trying to achieve but I don't even know where to start. What should I do?
The original chart is much bigger that the provided example, and that I will be doing a join on 8 different fields.
You approach is a lateral join:
select p.*, scc.*
from purchases p left join lateral
(select scc.*
from supply_conversion_chart scc
where (scc.customer_id = p.customer_id or scc.customer_id is null) and
(scc.product_id = p.product_id or scc. product_id is null) and
(scc.size = p.size or scc.size is null) and
(scc.purchase_type = p.purchase_type or scc.purchase_type is null)
order by ( (scc.customer_id = p.customer_id)::int +
(scc.product_id = p.product_id)::int
(scc.size = p.size)::int
(scc.purchase_type = p.purchase_type)::int
) desc
limit 1
) scc;
Note: This represents "everything" as NULL. It doesn't have special logic for "customer other than 1". However, it does show you how to implement basically what you are trying to do.
I have a table with the following structure and data in it:
| ID | Date | Result |
|---- |------------ |-------- |
| 1 | 30/04/2020 | + |
| 1 | 01/05/2020 | - |
| 1 | 05/05/2020 | - |
| 2 | 03/05/2020 | - |
| 2 | 04/05/2020 | + |
| 2 | 05/05/2020 | - |
| 2 | 06/05/2020 | - |
| 3 | 01/05/2020 | - |
| 3 | 02/05/2020 | - |
| 3 | 03/05/2020 | - |
| 3 | 04/05/2020 | - |
I'm trying to write an SQL query (I'm using SQL Server) which returns the date of the first two consecutive negative results for a given ID.
For example, for ID no. 1, the first two consecutive negative results are on 01/05 and 05/05.
The first two consecutive results for ID No. 2 are on 05/05 and 06/05.
The first two consecutive negative results for ID No. 3 are on on 01/05 and 02/05 .
So the query should produce the following result:
| ID | FirstNegativeDate |
|---- |------------------- |
| 1 | 01/05 |
| 2 | 05/05 |
| 3 | 01/05 |
Please note that the dates aren't necessarily one day apart. Sometimes, two consecutive negative tests may be several days apart. But they should still be considered as "consecutive negative tests". In other words, two negative tests are not 'consecutive' only if there is a positive test result in between them.
How can this be done in SQL? I've done some reading and it looks like maybe the PARTITION BY statement is required but I'm not sure how it works.
This is a gaps-and-island problem, where you want the start of the first island of '-'s that contains at least two rows.
I would recommend lead() and aggregation:
select id, min(date) first_negative_date
from (
select t.*, lead(result) over(partition by id order by date) lead_result
from mytable t
) t
where result = '-' and lead_result = '-'
group by id
Use LEAD or LAG functions over ID partition ordered by your Date column.
Then simple check where LEAD/LAG column is equal to Result.
You'll need also to filter the top ones.
The image attached just shows what LEAD/LAG would return
I have a table with following stock data where we have couple of columns like date, ticker, open and close(stock prices).
To query this data, I want to know which stock has given the highest margin on particular date. So if I have 516 different stocks, my query should return 516 rows of ticker, date, open, close and a new column Margin(which will be max(close-open)).
| deep_stocks.date_ | deep_stocks.ticker | deep_stocks.open | deep_stocks.close |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--+
| 20100721 | A | 27.68 | 27.58 |
| 20100722 | A | 27.95 | 28.72 |
| 20100723 | A | 28.56 | 29.3 |
| 20100726 | A | 29.22 | 29.64 |
| 20100727 | A | 29.73 | 28.87 |
| 20100728 | A | 28.79 | 28.78 |
| 20100729 | A | 28.97 | 28.15 |
| 20100730 | A | 27.78 | 27.93 |
| 20100802 | A | 28.35 | 28.82 |
| 20100803 | A | 28.7 | 27.84 |
I have written a query where my approach was:
Step 1 - Get the difference between Close and Open prices (Inner/Sub query)
Step 2 - Get the maximum of margin for every stock (used group by with max function)
Step 3 - Join the results with Main Table and get the data.
I'll put my query in solution or comments can someone please correct it as it is taking more time. Also I would like to know can we have any other alternative approach.
As already told about my approach please find below query:
SELECT ds.ticker, ds.date_, ds.close, ds.open, ds.Margin FROM
(SELECT ticker, date_, close, open, case(close-open)>0 when true then round(close-open,2) else 0 end as Margin FROM DataStocks) ds
JOIN
(SELECT dsIn.ticker, max(dsIn.Margin) mxMargin FROM
(select ticker, case(close-open)>0 when true then round(close-open,2) else 0 end as Margin FROM DataStocks ) dsIn group by dsIn.ticker) dsEx
ON ds.ticker=dsEx.ticker AND ds.Margin=dsEx.mxMargin ORDER BY ds.Margin;
Do we have any other alternatives for this query or can it be possible to optimize it.
My task is to combine two tables in a specific way. I have a table Demands that contains demands of some goods (tovar). Each record has its own ID, Tovar, Date of demand and Amount. And I have another table Unloads that contains unloads of tovar. Each record has its own ID, Tovar, Order of unload and Amount. Demands and Unloads are not corresponding to each other and amounts in demands and unloads are not exactly equal. One demand may be with 10 units and there can be two unloads with 4 and 6 units. And two demands may be with 3 and 5 units and there can be one unload with 11 units.
The task is to get a table which will show how demands are covering by unloads. I have a solution (SQL Fiddle) but I think that there is a better one. Can anybody tell me how such tasks are solved?
What I have:
------------------------------------------
| DemandNumber | Tovar | Amount | Order |
|--------------------------------|--------
| Demand#1 | Meat | 2 | 1 |
| Demand#2 | Meat | 3 | 2 |
| Demand#3 | Milk | 6 | 1 |
| Demand#4 | Eggs | 1 | 1 |
| Demand#5 | Eggs | 5 | 2 |
| Demand#6 | Eggs | 3 | 3 |
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
| SaleNumber | Tovar | Amount | Order |
|--------------------------------|--------
| Sale#1 | Meat | 6 | 1 |
| Sale#2 | Milk | 2 | 1 |
| Sale#3 | Milk | 1 | 2 |
| Sale#4 | Eggs | 2 | 1 |
| Sale#5 | Eggs | 1 | 2 |
| Sale#6 | Eggs | 4 | 3 |
------------------------------------------
What I want to receive
-------------------------------------------------
| DemandNumber | SaleNumber | Tovar | Amount |
-------------------------------------------------
| Demand#1 | Sale#1 | Meat | 2 |
| Demand#2 | Sale#1 | Meat | 3 |
| Demand#3 | Sale#2 | Milk | 2 |
| Demand#3 | Sale#3 | Milk | 1 |
| Demand#4 | Sale#4 | Eggs | 1 |
| Demand#5 | Sale#4 | Eggs | 1 |
| Demand#5 | Sale#5 | Eggs | 1 |
| Demand#5 | Sale#6 | Eggs | 3 |
| Demand#6 | Sale#6 | Eggs | 1 |
-------------------------------------------------
Here is additional explanation from author's comment:
Demand#1 needs 2 Meat and it can take them from Sale#1.
Demand#2 needs 3 Meat and can take them from Sale#1.
Demand#3 needs 6 Milk but there is only 2 Milk in Sale#3 and 1 Milk in Sale#4, so we show only available amounts.
And so on.
The field Order in the example determine the order of calculations. We have to process Demands according to their Order. Demand#1 must be processed before Demand#2. And Sales also must be allocated according to their Order number. We cannot assign eggs from sale if there are sales with eggs with lower order and non-allocated eggs.
The only way I can get this is using loops. Is it posible to avoid loops and solve this task only with t-sql?
If the Amount values are int and not too large (not millions), then I'd use a table of numbers to generate as many rows as the value of each Amount.
Here is a good article describing how to generate it.
Then it is easy to join Demand with Sale and group and sum as needed.
Otherwise, a plain straight-forward cursor (in fact, two cursors) would be simple to implement, easy to understand and with O(n) complexity. If Amounts are small, set-based variant is likely to be faster than cursor. If Amounts are large, cursor may be faster. You need to measure performance with actual data.
Here is a query that uses a table of numbers. To understand how it works run each query in the CTE separately and examine its output.
SQLFiddle
WITH
CTE_Demands
AS
(
SELECT
D.DemandNumber
,D.Tovar
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY D.Tovar ORDER BY D.SortOrder, CA_D.Number) AS rn
FROM
Demands AS D
CROSS APPLY
(
SELECT TOP(D.Amount) Numbers.Number
FROM Numbers
ORDER BY Numbers.Number
) AS CA_D
)
,CTE_Sales
AS
(
SELECT
S.SaleNumber
,S.Tovar
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY S.Tovar ORDER BY S.SortOrder, CA_S.Number) AS rn
FROM
Sales AS S
CROSS APPLY
(
SELECT TOP(S.Amount) Numbers.Number
FROM Numbers
ORDER BY Numbers.Number
) AS CA_S
)
SELECT
CTE_Demands.DemandNumber
,CTE_Sales.SaleNumber
,CTE_Demands.Tovar
,COUNT(*) AS Amount
FROM
CTE_Demands
INNER JOIN CTE_Sales ON
CTE_Sales.Tovar = CTE_Demands.Tovar
AND CTE_Sales.rn = CTE_Demands.rn
GROUP BY
CTE_Demands.Tovar
,CTE_Demands.DemandNumber
,CTE_Sales.SaleNumber
ORDER BY
CTE_Demands.DemandNumber
,CTE_Sales.SaleNumber
;
Having said all this, usually it is better to perform this kind of processing on the client using procedural programming language. You still have to transmit all rows from Demands and Sales to the client. So, by joining the tables on the server you don't reduce the amount of bytes that must go over the network. In fact, you increase it, because original row may be split into several rows.
This kind of processing is sequential in nature, not set-based, so it is easy to do with arrays, but tricky in SQL.
I have no idea what your requirements are or what the business rules are or what the goals are but I can say this -- you are doing it wrong.
This is SQL. In SQL you do not do loops. In SQL you work with sets. Sets are defined by select statements.
If this problem is not resolved with a select statement (maybe with sub-selects) then you probably want to implement this in another way. (C# program? Some other ETL system?).
However, I can also say there is probably a way to do this with a single select statement. However you have not given enough information for me to know what that statement is. To say you have a working example and that should be enough fails on this site because this site is about answering questions about problems and you don't have a problem you have some code.
Re-phrase the question with inputs, expect outputs, what you have tried and what your question is. This is covered well in the FAQ.
Or if you have working code you want reviewed, it may be appropriate for the code review site.
I see additional 2 possible ways:
1. for 'advanced' data processing and calculations you can use cursors.
2. you can use SELECT with CASE construction
I have at table containing procurement contracts that looks like this:
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| type | text | date | company | supplierID | name |
+ -----+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | None | 2004-03-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2007-09-30 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2010-11-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 2 | Strategic | 2011-01-01 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2012-04-10 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
In this example the first three rows the contract is the same. So I only want the first one.
The row with type = 2 is a change in procurement contract with the given supplier. I want to select that row as well.
On the last row the contract changes back to 0, so I want to select that row as well.
Basically I want to select the first row and the rows where the contract type changes. So the result should look like this:
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| type | text | date | company | supplierID | name |
+ -----+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | None | 2004-03-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 2 | Strategic | 2011-01-01 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2012-04-10 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
Any suggestions to how I can accomplish this?
;WITH cte AS
(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY date) AS Id,
type, text, date, company, supplierId, name
FROM your_table
)
SELECT c1.type, c1.text, c1.date, c1.company,
c1.supplierId, c1.name
FROM cte c1 LEFT JOIN cte c2 ON c1.id = c2.id + 1
WHERE c2.text IS NULL OR c1.text != c2.text
Demo on SQLFiddle
I don't have SQL server in front of me to test it out so I'm not going to attempt the actual solution for it right now, but fyi there are few things you need:
1) A way to make sure the records are ordered properly. I don't see any kind of an id here which means you have no guarantee that they will appear in that order. I assume there is one so just make sure you order by it
2) You need to do an outer join on the table to itself on whatever the index is, but instead of "table1.index = table2.index" it will look like "table1.index = table2.index + 1". If your indexes aren't sequential then it will make joining them this way more complex than that though.
3) In the where clause you'll specify something like
where table1.type <> table2.type
That will get you most the way there. That won't pick up the very first record though since there is no record before the first record to compare to so you'll need an OR addition to compensate for that. And I'm assuming that type has no NULL values.
Sorry I couldn't be more help with an actual implementation but maybe someone else will take care of that shortly.
might be what you want. Presumingly you dont have type < 0.
SELECT *
FROM [TABLE] as ot where ot.type <>
(select top 1 coalesce(it.type, -1) from [TABLE] as it where it.date < ot.date order by it.date desc)
Also, take not of brandon note to make shure tables are ordered, due i dont see PK.