I am writing some SQL queries in AWS Athena. I have 3 tables search, retrieval and intent. In search table I have 2 columns id and term i.e.
id term
1 abc
1 bcd
2 def
1 ghd
What I want is to write a query to get:
id term
1 abc, bcd, ghd
2 def
I know this can be done using STUFF and FOR XML PATH but, in Athena all the features of SQL are yet not supported. Is there any other way to achieve this. My current query is:
select search.id , STUFF(
(select ',' + search.term
from search
FOR XML PATH('')),1,1,'')
FROM search
group by search.id
Also, I have one more question. I have retrieval table that consist of 3 columns i.e.:
id time term
1 0 abc
1 20 bcd
1 100 gfh
2 40 hfg
2 60 lkf
What I want is:
id time term
1 100 gfh
2 60 lkf
I want to write a query to get the id and term on the basis of max value of time. Here is my current query:
select retrieval.id, max(retrieval.time), retrieval.term
from search
group by retrieval.id, retrieval.term
order by max(retrieval.time)
I am getting duplicate id's along with the term. I think it is because, I am doing group by on id and term both. But, I am not sure how can I achieve it without using group by.
The XML method is brokenness in SQL Server. No reason to attempt it in any other database.
One method uses arrays:
select s.id, array_agg(s.term)
from search s
group by s.id;
Because the database supports arrays, you should learn to use them. You can convert the array to a string:
select s.id, array_join(array_agg(s.term), ',') as terms
from search s
group by s.id;
Group by is a group operation: think that you are clubbing the results and have to find min, max, count etc.
I am answering only one question. Use it to find the answer to question 1
For question 2:
select
from (select id, max(time) as time
from search
group by id, term
order by max(time)
) search_1, search as search_2
where search_1.id = search_2.id
and search_1.time = search_2.time
Related
I just joined after having a problem writing a query in MS Access. I am trying to write a query that will pull out the first two valid samples in from a list of replicated sample results and then would like to average the sample values. I have written a query that does pull samples with only two valid samples and averages these values. However, my query doesn't pull samples where there are more than two valid sample results. Here's my query:
SELECT temp_platevalid_table.samp_name AS samp_name, avg (temp_platevalid_table.mean_conc) AS fin_avg, count(temp_platevalid_table.samp_valid) AS sample_count
FROM Temp_PlateValid_table
WHERE (Temp_PlateValid_table.id In (SELECT TOP 2 S.id
FROM Temp_PlateValid_table as S
WHERE S.samp_name = S.samp_name and s.samp_valid=1 and S.samp_valid=1
ORDER BY ID))
GROUP BY Temp_PlateValid_table.samp_name
HAVING ((Count(Temp_PlateValid_table.samp_valid))=2)
ORDER BY Temp_PlateValid_table.samp_name;
Here's an example of what I'm trying to do:
ID Samp_Name Samp_Valid Mean_Conc
1 54d2d2 1 15
2 54d2d2 1 20
3 54d2d2 1 25
The average mean_conc should be 17.5, however, with my current query, I wouldn't receive a value at all for 54d2d2. Is there a way to tweak my query so that I get a value for samples that have more than two valid values? Please note that I'm using MS Access, so I don't think I can use fancier SQL code (partition by, etc.).
Thanks in advance for your help!
Is this what you want?
select pv.samp_name, avg(pv.value_conc)
from Temp_PlateValid_table pv
where pv.samp_valid = 1 and
pv.id in (select top 2 id
from Temp_PlateValid_table as pv2
where pv2.samp_name = pv.samp_name and pv2.samp_valid = 1
)
group by pv.samp_name;
You might need avg(pv.value_conc * 1.0).
I have some data like this as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
and I need a query to get the results as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 3
3 4
Please consider that I'm a beginner in SQL.
I assume you want the Count of the row
SELECT Acc_Id, COUNT(*)
FROM Table
GROUP BY Acc_Id
Try this:
select Acc_Id, MAX(Row_No)
from table
group by Acc_Id
As a beginner then this is your first exposure to aggregation and grouping. You may want to look at the documentation on group by now that this problem has motivated your interest in a solutions. Grouping operates by looking at rows with common column values, that you specify, and collapsing them into a single row which represents the group. In your case values in Acc_Id are the names for your groups.
The other answers are both correct in the the final two columns are going to be equivalent with your data.
select Acc_Id, count(*), max(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
If you have gaps in the numbering then they won't be the same. You'll have to decide whether you're actually looking for a count of rows of a maximum of a value within a column. At this point you can also consider a number of other aggregate functions that will be useful to you in the future. (Note that the actual values here are pretty much meaningless in this context.)
select Acc_Id, min(Row_No), sum(Row_No), avg(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
I have list of Ids 31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136 which is dynamic.
When I run query
select id,name from master_movievod where id in(31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136);
I get following result
31136|Independence Day
31160|Planet of the Apes
31165|Mrs. Doubtfire
31199|Moulin Rouge
31321|Adult Movie 2
31322|Adult Movie 3
This is sorted list in ascending order.
I want the list in the same order which I give as input like
31165|Mrs. Doubtfire
31160|Planet of the Apes
31321|Adult Movie 2
31322|Adult Movie 3
31199|Moulin Rouge
31136|Independece Day
Without an order by clause, there's no guarantee on the order a database returns the results to you. SQLite, unfortunately, doesn't have something like MySQL's field for custom sorting, but you can jimmy-rig something with a case expression:
SELECT id, name
FROM master_movievod
WHERE id IN (31165, 31160, 31321, 31322, 31199, 31136)
ORDER BY CASE ID WHEN 31165 THEN 0
WHEN 31160 THEN 1
WHEN 31321 THEN 2
WHEN 31322 THEN 3
WHEN 31199 THEN 4
WHEN 31136 THEN 5
END ASC
Unfortunately, SQLite does not have an option like MySQL's FIELD for doing a custom ordering. You are left with two options. The first is that you could create a custom table containing the ordering you want and use that to sort. This option isn't very attractive. The second (and easier) option is to use ORDER BY CASE to achieve the order you want:
SELECT id, name FROM master_movievod
WHERE id IN (31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136)
ORDER BY
CASE id
WHEN 31165 THEN 0
WHEN 31160 THEN 1
WHEN 31321 THEN 2
WHEN 31322 THEN 3
WHEN 31199 THEN 4
WHEN 31136 THEN 5
END ASC
Im after an sql statement (if it exists) or how to set up a method using several sql statements to achieve the following.
I have a listbox and a search text box.
in the search box, user would enter a surname e.g. smith.
i then want to query the database for the search with something like this :
select * FROM customer where surname LIKE searchparam
This would give me all the results for customers with surname containing : SMITH . Simple, right?
What i need to do is limit the results returned. This statement could give me 1000's of rows if the search param was just S.
What i want is the result, limited to the first 20 matches AND the 10 rows prior to the 1st match.
For example, SMI search:
Sives
Skimmings
Skinner
Skipper
Slater
Sloan
Slow
Small
Smallwood
Smetain
Smith ----------- This is the first match of my query. But i want the previous 10 and following 20.
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smoday
Smyth
Snedden
Snell
Snow
Sohn
Solis
Solomon
Solway
Sommer
Sommers
Soper
Sorace
Spears
Spedding
Is there anyway to do this?
As few sql statements as possible.
Reason? I am creating an app for users with slow internet connections.
I am using POSTGRESQL v9
Thanks
Andrew
WITH ranked AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() over (ORDER BY surname) AS rowNumber FROM customer
)
SELECT ranked.*
FROM ranked, (SELECT MIN(rowNumber) target FROM ranked WHERE surname LIKE searchparam) found
WHERE ranked.rowNumber BETWEEN found.target - 10 AND found.target + 20
ORDER BY ranked.rowNumber
SQL Fiddle here. Note that the fiddle uses the example data, and I modified the range to 3 entries before and 6 entries past.
I'm assuming that you're looking for a general algorithm ...
It sounds like you're looking for a combination of finding the matches "greater than or equal to smith", and "less than smith".
For the former you'd order by surname and limit the result to 20, and for the latter you'd order by surname descending and limit to 10.
The two result sets can then be added together as arrays and reordered.
I think you need to use ROW_NUMBER() (see this link).
WITH cust1 AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY surname) as numRow FROM customer
)
SELECT c1.surname, c1.numRow, x.flag
FROM cust1 c1, (SELECT *,
case when numRow = (SELECT MIN(numRow) FROM cust1 WHERE surname='Smith') then 1 else 0 end as flag
FROM cust1) x
WHERE x.flag = 1 and c1.numRow BETWEEN x.numRow - 1 AND x.numRow + 1
ORDER BY c1.numRow
SQLFiddle here.
This works, but the flag finally isn't necessary and it would be a query like PinnyM posts.
A variation on #PinnyM's solution:
WITH ranked AS (
SELECT
*,
ROW_NUMBER() over (ORDER BY surname) AS rowNumber
FROM customer
),
minrank AS (
SELECT
*,
MIN(CASE WHEN surname LIKE searchparam THEN rowNumber END) OVER () AS target
FROM ranked
)
SELECT
surname
FROM minrank
WHERE rowNumber BETWEEN target - 10 AND target + 20
;
Instead of two separate calls to the ranked CTE, one to get the first match's row number and the other to read the results from, another CTE is introduced to serve both purposes. Can't speak for PostgreSQL but in SQL Server this might result in a better execution plan for the query, although in either case the real efficiency would still need to be verified by proper testing.
Hi I know how to use the group by clause for sql. I am not sure how to explain this so Ill draw some charts. Here is my original data:
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
user1 9
user1 3
user2 1
user2 10
user3 97
Here is the output I need
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
Is this even possible?
The normal method for this is to handle it in the presentation layer, not the database layer.
Reasons:
The Name field is a property of that data row
If you leave the Name out, how do you know what Location goes with which name?
You are implicitly relying on the order of the data, which in SQL is a very bad practice (since there is no inherent ordering to the returned data)
Any solution will need to involve a cursor or a loop, which is not what SQL is optimized for - it likes working in SETS not on individual rows
Hope this helps
SELECT A.FINAL_NAME, A.LOCATION
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM YOUR_TABLE_7 YT) A
As Jirka correctly pointed out, I was using the Outer select, distinct and raw Name unnecessarily. My mistake was that as I used DISTINCT , I got the resulted sorted like
1 1
2 user2 1
3 user3 97
4 user1 1
5 3
6 9
7 10
I wanted to avoid output like this.
Hence I added the raw id and outer select
However , removing the DISTINCT solves the problem.
Hence only this much is enough
SELECT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM SO_BUFFER_TABLE_7 YT
Thanks Jirka
If you're using straight SQL*Plus to make your report (don't laugh, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it), you can do this with the BREAK command:
SQL> break on name
SQL> WITH q AS (
SELECT 'user1' NAME, 1 LOCATION FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 9 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 3 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 1 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 10 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user3', 97 FROM dual
)
SELECT NAME,LOCATION
FROM q
ORDER BY name;
NAME LOCATION
----- ----------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
6 rows selected.
SQL>
I cannot but agree with the other commenters that this kind of problem does not look like it should ever be solved using SQL, but let us face it anyway.
SELECT
CASE main.name WHERE preceding_id IS NULL THEN main.name ELSE null END,
main.location
FROM mytable main LEFT JOIN mytable preceding
ON main.name = preceding.name AND MIN(preceding.id) < main.id
GROUP BY main.id, main.name, main.location, preceding.name
ORDER BY main.id
The GROUP BY clause is not responsible for the grouping job, at least not directly. In the first approximation, an outer join to the same table (LEFT JOIN below) can be used to determine on which row a particular value occurs for the first time. This is what we are after. This assumes that there are some unique id values that make it possible to arbitrarily order all the records. (The ORDER BY clause does NOT do this; it orders the output, not the input of the whole computation, but it is still necessary to make sure that the output is presented correctly, because the remaining SQL does not imply any particular order of processing.)
As you can see, there is still a GROUP BY clause in the SQL, but with a perhaps unexpected purpose. Its job is to "undo" a side effect of the LEFT JOIN, which is duplication of all main records that have many "preceding" ( = successfully joined) records.
This is quite normal with GROUP BY. The typical effect of a GROUP BY clause is a reduction of the number of records; and impossibility to query or test columns NOT listed in the GROUP BY clause, except through aggregate functions like COUNT, MIN, MAX, or SUM. This is because these columns really represent "groups of values" due to the GROUP BY, not just specific values.
If you are using SQL*Plus, use the BREAK function. In this case, break on NAME.
If you are using another reporting tool, you may be able to compare the "name" field to the previous record and suppress printing when they are equal.
If you use GROUP BY, output rows are sorted according to the GROUP BY columns as if you had an ORDER BY for the same columns. To avoid the overhead of sorting that GROUP BY produces, add ORDER BY NULL:
SELECT a, COUNT(b) FROM test_table GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
Relying on implicit GROUP BY sorting in MySQL 5.6 is deprecated. To achieve a specific sort order of grouped results, it is preferable to use an explicit ORDER BY clause. GROUP BY sorting is a MySQL extension that may change in a future release; for example, to make it possible for the optimizer to order groupings in whatever manner it deems most efficient and to avoid the sorting overhead.
For full information - http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
SQL GROUP BY STATEMENT
SQL GROUP BY clause is used in collaboration with the SELECT statement to arrange identical data into groups.
Syntax:
1. SELECT column_nm, aggregate_function(column_nm) FROM table_nm WHERE column_nm operator value GROUP BY column_nm;
Example :
To understand the GROUP BY clauserefer the sample database.Below table showing fields from “order” table:
1. |EMPORD_ID|employee1ID|customerID|shippers_ID|
Below table showing fields from “shipper” table:
1. | shippers_ID| shippers_Name |
Below table showing fields from “table_emp1” table:
1. | employee1ID| first1_nm | last1_nm |
Example :
To find the number of orders sent by each shipper.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM orders LEFT JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID = shipper.shippers_ID GROUP BY shippers_Name;
1. | shippers_Name | No_of_orders |
Example :
To use GROUP BY statement on more than one column.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, table_emp1.last1_nm, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM ((orders INNER JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID=shipper.shippers_ID) INNER JOIN table_emp1 ON orders.employee1ID = table_emp1.employee1ID)
2. GROUP BY shippers_Name,last1_nm;
| shippers_Name | last1_nm |No_of_orders |
for more clarification refer my link
http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/