Suppose I have labels with multiple stores associated with them like so:
label_id | store_id
--------------------
label_1 | store_1
label_1 | store_2
label_1 | store_3
label_2 | store_2
label_2 | store_3
label_3 | store_1
label_3 | store_2
Is there any good way in SQL (or jooq) to get all the store ids in the intersection of the labels? Meaning just return store_2 in the example above because store_2 is associated with label_1, label_2, and label_3? I would like a general method to handle the case where I have n labels.
This is a relational division problem, where you want the stores that have all possible labels. Here is an approach using aggregation:
select store_id
from mytable
group by store_id
having count(*) = (select count(distinct label_id) from mytable)
Note that this assumes no duplicate (store_id, label_id) tuples. Otherwise, you need to change the having clause to:
having count(distinct label_id) = (select count(distinct label_id) from mytable)
Since you're also looking for a jOOQ solution, jOOQ supports a synthetic relational division operator, which produces a more academic approach to relational division, using relational algebra operators only:
// Using jOOQ
T t1 = T.as("t1");
T t2 = T.as("t2");
ctx.select()
.from(t1.divideBy(t2).on(t1.LABEL_ID.eq(t2.LABEL_ID)).returning(t1.STORE_ID).as("t"))
.fetch();
This produces something like the following query:
select t.store_id
from (
select distinct dividend.store_id
from t dividend
where not exists (
select 1
from t t2
where not exists (
select 1
from t t1
where dividend.store_id = t1.store_id
and t1.label_id = t2.label_id
)
)
) t
In plain English:
Get me all the stores (dividend), for which there exists no label (t2) for which that store (dividend) has no entry (t1)
Or in other words
If there was a label (t2) that a store (dividend) does not have (t1), then that store (dividend) would not have all the available labels.
This isn't necessarily more readable or faster than GROUP BY / HAVING COUNT(*) based implementations of relational divisions (as seen in other answers), in fact, the GROUP BY / HAVING based solutions are probably preferrable here, especially since only one table is involved. A future version of jOOQ might use the GROUP BY / HAVING approach, instead: #10450
But in jOOQ, it might be quite convenient to write this way, and you asked for a jOOQ solution :)
Then convert the query by #GMB into an SQL function that takes an array and returns a table of store_id's.
create or replace
function stores_with_all_labels( label_list text[] )
returns table (store_id text)
language sql
as $$
select store_id
from label_store
where label_id = any (label_list)
group by store_id
having count(*) = array_length(label_list,1);
$$;
Then all that's needed is a simple select. See complete example here.
If there are three particular labels you want, you can use:
select store_id
from t
where label in (1, 2, 3)
group by store_id
having count(*) = 3;
If you want only those three labels and nothing else, then:
select store_id
from t
group by store_id
having count(*) = 3 and
count(*) filter (where label in (1, 2, 3)) = count(*);
I would like to retrieve all rows matching a set of conditions on the same column. But I would like the rows only if ALL the conditions are good, and no row if only one condition fails.
For example, taking this table:
|id|name|
---------
|1 |toto|
|2 |tata|
I would like to be able to request if "tata" && "toto" are in this table. But when asking if "tata" and "tuto" are in, I would like an empty response if one of argument is in not in the table, for example asking if "toto" && "tutu" are included in the table.
How can I do that ?
Currently, I'am doing one query per argument, which is not very efficient. I tried several solutions including a subselect or a group+having, but no one is working like I want.
thanks for your support !
cheers
This isn't the most efficient way, but this query would work.
SELECT * FROM table_name
WHERE (name = 'toto' OR name = 'tata')
AND ( SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_name WHERE name = 'toto') > 0
AND ( SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_name WHERE name = 'tata') > 0
This is a little vague. If the names are unique, you could count the matching rows that match a where clause:
where name='toto' or name='tata'
If the count is 2, then you know both matched. If name is not unique you could potentially select the first ID (select top 1 id ...) that matches each in a union and count those with an outer select.
Even if you had an arbitrary number of names to match, you could create a stored procedure or code in whatever top-level language you are using to build the select statement.
SELECT 1 AS found FROM hehe
WHERE 1 IN (SELECT 1 FROM hehe WHERE name='tata')
AND 1 IN (SELECT 1 FROM hehe WHERE name='toto')
If name is unique you can simplify to:
SELECT *
FROM tbl
WHERE name IN ('toto', 'tata')
AND (SELECT count(*) FROM tbl WHERE name IN ('toto', 'tata')) > 1;
If it isn't:
SELECT *
FROM tbl
WHERE name IN ('toto', 'tata')
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE name = 'toto')
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE name = 'tata');
Or, in PostgreSQL, MySQL and possibly others:
SELECT *
FROM tbl
WHERE name IN ('toto', 'tata')
AND (SELECT count(DISTINCT name) FROM tbl WHERE name IN ('toto', 'tata')) > 1;
I have a simple SQL query in PostgreSQL 8.3 that grabs a bunch of comments. I provide a sorted list of values to the IN construct in the WHERE clause:
SELECT * FROM comments WHERE (comments.id IN (1,3,2,4));
This returns comments in an arbitrary order which in my happens to be ids like 1,2,3,4.
I want the resulting rows sorted like the list in the IN construct: (1,3,2,4).
How to achieve that?
You can do it quite easily with (introduced in PostgreSQL 8.2) VALUES (), ().
Syntax will be like this:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
values
(1,1),
(3,2),
(2,3),
(4,4)
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
In Postgres 9.4 or later, this is simplest and fastest:
SELECT c.*
FROM comments c
JOIN unnest('{1,3,2,4}'::int[]) WITH ORDINALITY t(id, ord) USING (id)
ORDER BY t.ord;
WITH ORDINALITY was introduced with in Postgres 9.4.
No need for a subquery, we can use the set-returning function like a table directly. (A.k.a. "table-function".)
A string literal to hand in the array instead of an ARRAY constructor may be easier to implement with some clients.
For convenience (optionally), copy the column name we are joining to ("id" in the example), so we can join with a short USING clause to only get a single instance of the join column in the result.
Works with any input type. If your key column is of type text, provide something like '{foo,bar,baz}'::text[].
Detailed explanation:
PostgreSQL unnest() with element number
Just because it is so difficult to find and it has to be spread: in mySQL this can be done much simpler, but I don't know if it works in other SQL.
SELECT * FROM `comments`
WHERE `comments`.`id` IN ('12','5','3','17')
ORDER BY FIELD(`comments`.`id`,'12','5','3','17')
With Postgres 9.4 this can be done a bit shorter:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
select *
from unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering;
Or a bit more compact without a derived table:
select c.*
from comments c
join unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality as x (id, ordering)
on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
Removing the need to manually assign/maintain a position to each value.
With Postgres 9.6 this can be done using array_position():
with x (id_list) as (
values (array[42,48,43])
)
select c.*
from comments c, x
where id = any (x.id_list)
order by array_position(x.id_list, c.id);
The CTE is used so that the list of values only needs to be specified once. If that is not important this can also be written as:
select c.*
from comments c
where id in (42,48,43)
order by array_position(array[42,48,43], c.id);
I think this way is better :
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY id=1 DESC, id=3 DESC, id=2 DESC, id=4 DESC
Another way to do it in Postgres would be to use the idx function.
SELECT *
FROM comments
ORDER BY idx(array[1,3,2,4], comments.id)
Don't forget to create the idx function first, as described here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Array_Index
In Postgresql:
select *
from comments
where id in (1,3,2,4)
order by position(id::text in '1,3,2,4')
On researching this some more I found this solution:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY CASE "comments"."id"
WHEN 1 THEN 1
WHEN 3 THEN 2
WHEN 2 THEN 3
WHEN 4 THEN 4
END
However this seems rather verbose and might have performance issues with large datasets.
Can anyone comment on these issues?
To do this, I think you should probably have an additional "ORDER" table which defines the mapping of IDs to order (effectively doing what your response to your own question said), which you can then use as an additional column on your select which you can then sort on.
In that way, you explicitly describe the ordering you desire in the database, where it should be.
sans SEQUENCE, works only on 8.4:
select * from comments c
join
(
select id, row_number() over() as id_sorter
from (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id) as y
) x on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter
SELECT * FROM "comments" JOIN (
SELECT 1 as "id",1 as "order" UNION ALL
SELECT 3,2 UNION ALL SELECT 2,3 UNION ALL SELECT 4,4
) j ON "comments"."id" = j."id" ORDER BY j.ORDER
or if you prefer evil over good:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY POSITION(','+"comments"."id"+',' IN ',1,3,2,4,')
And here's another solution that works and uses a constant table (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/sql-values.html):
SELECT * FROM comments AS c,
(VALUES (1,1),(3,2),(2,3),(4,4) ) AS t (ord_id,ord)
WHERE (c.id IN (1,3,2,4)) AND (c.id = t.ord_id)
ORDER BY ord
But again I'm not sure that this is performant.
I've got a bunch of answers now. Can I get some voting and comments so I know which is the winner!
Thanks All :-)
create sequence serial start 1;
select * from comments c
join (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id, nextval('serial') as id_sorter) x
on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter;
drop sequence serial;
[EDIT]
unnest is not yet built-in in 8.3, but you can create one yourself(the beauty of any*):
create function unnest(anyarray) returns setof anyelement
language sql as
$$
select $1[i] from generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
that function can work in any type:
select unnest(array['John','Paul','George','Ringo']) as beatle
select unnest(array[1,3,2,4]) as id
Slight improvement over the version that uses a sequence I think:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION in_sort(anyarray, out id anyelement, out ordinal int)
LANGUAGE SQL AS
$$
SELECT $1[i], i FROM generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
SELECT
*
FROM
comments c
INNER JOIN (SELECT * FROM in_sort(ARRAY[1,3,2,4])) AS in_sort
USING (id)
ORDER BY in_sort.ordinal;
select * from comments where comments.id in
(select unnest(ids) from bbs where id=19795)
order by array_position((select ids from bbs where id=19795),comments.id)
here, [bbs] is the main table that has a field called ids,
and, ids is the array that store the comments.id .
passed in postgresql 9.6
Lets get a visual impression about what was already said. For example you have a table with some tasks:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks as a ORDER BY random();
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
6 | deleted | need some rest
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
And you want to order the list of tasks by its status.
The status is a list of string values:
(processing, pending, completed, deleted)
The trick is to give each status value an interger and order the list numerical:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks AS a
JOIN (
VALUES ('processing', 1), ('pending', 2), ('completed', 3), ('deleted', 4)
) AS b (status, id) ON (a.status = b.status)
ORDER BY b.id ASC;
Which leads to:
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
6 | deleted | need some rest
Credit #user80168
I agree with all other posters that say "don't do that" or "SQL isn't good at that". If you want to sort by some facet of comments then add another integer column to one of your tables to hold your sort criteria and sort by that value. eg "ORDER BY comments.sort DESC " If you want to sort these in a different order every time then... SQL won't be for you in this case.