I am trying to get a sample of data from a large table and want to make sure this can be repeated later on. Other SQL allow repeatable sampling to be done with either setting a seed using set.seed(integer) or repeatable (integer) command. However, this is not working for me in Presto. Is such a command not available yet? Thanks.
One solution is that you can simulate the sampling by adding a column (or create a view) with random stuff (such as UUID) and then selecting rows by filtering on this column (for example, UUID ended with '1'). You can tune the condition to get the sample size you need.
By design, the result is random and also repeatable across multiple runs.
If you are using Presto 0.263 or higher you can use key_sampling_percent to reproducibly generate a double between 0.0 and 1.0 from a varchar.
For example, to reproducibly sample 20% of records in table using the id column:
select
id
from table
where key_sampling_percent(id) < 0.2
If you are using an older version of Presto (e.g. AWS Athena), you can use what's in the source code for key_sampling_percent:
select
id
from table
where (abs(from_ieee754_64(xxhash64(cast(id as varbinary)))) % 100) / 100. < 0.2
I have found that you have to use from_big_endian_64 instead of from_ieee754_64 to get reliable results in Athena. Otherwise I got no many numbers close to zero because of the negative exponent.
select id
from table
where (abs(from_big_endian_64(xxhash64(cast(id as varbinary)))) % 100) / 100. < 0.2
You may create a simple intermediate table with selected ids:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS <temp1>
AS
SELECT <id_column>
FROM <tablename> TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM (10);
This will contain only sampled ids and will be ready to use it downstream in your analysis by doing JOIN with data of interest.
Related
I have this code in SAS, I'm trying to write SQL equivalent. I have no experience in SAS.
data Fulls Fulls_Dupes;
set Fulls;
by name, coeff, week;
if rid = 0 and ^last.week then output Fulls_Dupes;
else output Fulls;
run;
I tried the following, but didn't produce the same output:
Select * from Fulls where rid = 0 groupby name,coeff,week
is my sql query correct ?
SQL does not have a concept of observation order. So there is no direct equivalent of the LAST. concept. If you have some variable that is monotonically increasing within the groups defined by distinct values of name, coeff, and week then you could select the observation that has the maximum value of that variable to find the observation that is the LAST.
So for example if you also had a variable named DAY that uniquely identified and ordered the observations in the same way as they exist in the FULLES dataset now then you could use the test DAY=MAX(DAY) to find the last observation. In PROC SQL you can use that test directly because SAS will automatically remerge the aggregate value back onto all of the detailed observations. In other SQL implementations you might need to add an extra query to get the max.
create table new_FULLES as
select * from FULLES
group by name, coeff, week
having day=max(day) or rid ne 0
;
SQL also does not have any concept of writing two datasets at once. But for this example since the two generated datasets are distinct and include all of the original observations you could generate the second from the first using EXCEPT.
So if you could build the new FULLS you could get FULLS_DUPES from the new FULLS and the old FULLS.
create table FULLS_DUPES as
select * from FULLES
except
select * from new_FULLES
;
I have the following MYSQL table:
measuredata:
- ID (bigint)
- timestamp
- entityid
- value (double)
The table contains >1 billion entries. I want to be able to visualize any time-window. The time window can be size of "one day" to "many years". There are measurement values round about every minute in DB.
So the number of entries for a time-window can be quite different. Say from few hundrets to several thousands or millions.
Those values are ment to be visualiuzed in a graphical chart-diagram on a webpage.
If the chart is - lets say - 800px wide, it does not make sense to get thousands of rows from database if time-window is quite big. I cannot show more than 800 values on this chart anyhow.
So, is there a way to reduce the resultset directly on DB-side?
I know "average" and "sum" etc. as aggregate function. But how can I i.e. aggregate 100k rows from a big time-window to lets say 800 final rows?
Just getting those 100k rows and let the chart do the magic is not the preferred option. Transfer-size is one reason why this is not an option.
Isn't there something on DB side I can use?
Something like avg() to shrink X rows to Y averaged rows?
Or a simple magic to just skip every #th row to shrink X to Y?
update:
Although I'm using MySQL right now, I'm not tied to this. If PostgreSQL f.i. provides a feature that could solve the issue, I'm willing to switch DB.
update2:
I maybe found a possible solution: https://mike.depalatis.net/blog/postgres-time-series-database.html
See section "Data aggregation".
The key is not to use a unixtimestamp but a date and "trunc" it, avergage the values and group by the trunc'ed date. Could work for me, but would require a rework of my table structure. Hmm... maybe there's more ... still researching ...
update3:
Inspired by update 2, I came up with this query:
SELECT (`timestamp` - (`timestamp` % 86400)) as aggtimestamp, `entity`, `value` FROM `measuredata` WHERE `entity` = 38 AND timestamp > UNIX_TIMESTAMP('2019-01-25') group by aggtimestamp
Works, but my DB/index/structue seems not really optimized for this: Query for last year took ~75sec (slow test machine) but finally got only a one value per day. This can be combined with avg(value), but this further increases query time... (~82sec). I will see if it's possible to further optimize this. But I now have an idea how "downsampling" data works, especially with aggregation in combination with "group by".
There is probably no efficient way to do this. But, if you want, you can break the rows into equal sized groups and then fetch, say, the first row from each group. Here is one method:
select md.*
from (select md.*,
row_number() over (partition by tile order by timestamp) as seqnum
from (select md.*, ntile(800) over (order by timestamp) as tile
from measuredata md
where . . . -- your filtering conditions here
) md
) md
where seqnum = 1;
I have a table with 2 integer fields x,y and few millions of rows.
The fields are created with the following code:
Field.newBuilder("x", LegacySQLTypeName.INTEGER).setMode(Field.Mode.NULLABLE).build();
If I run the following from the web:
SELECT x,y FROM [myproject:Test.Test] where x=1 LIMIT 50
Query Editor: "Valid: This query will process 64.9 MB when run."
compared to:
SELECT x FROM [myproject:Test.Test] where x=1 LIMIT 50
Query Editor: " Valid: This query will process 32.4 MB when run."
It scans more than double of the original data scanned.
I would expect it will first find the relevant rows based on where clause and then bring the extra field without scanning the entire second field.
Any inputs on why it doubles the data scanned and how to avoid it will be appreciated.
In my application I have hundred of possible fields which I need to fetch for a very small number of rows (50) which answer the query.
Does this means I will need to processed all fields data?
* I'm aware how columnar database works, but wasn't aware for the huge price when you want to brings lots of fields based on a very specific where clause.
The following link provide very clear answer:
best-practices-performance-input
BigQuery does not have a concept of index or something like that. When you query a field column, BigQuery will scan through all the values of that column and then make the operations you want (for a deeper deep understanding they have some pretty cool posts about the inner workings of BQ).
That means that when you select x and y where x = 1, BQ will read through all values of x and y and then find where x = 1.
This ends up being an amazing feature of BQ, you just load your data there and it just works. It does force you to be aware on how much data you retrieve from each query. Queries of the type select * from table should be used only if you really need all columns.
How to write this expression in PowerBI
select distinct([date]),Temperature from Device47A8F where Temperature>25
Totally new to PowerBI. Is there any tool that can change the query from sql to PowerBI expression?
I have tried so many type of different type of expressions but getting error, Most of the time I am getting this:
The expression refers to multiple columns. Multiple columns cannot be converted to a scalar value.
Need help, Thanks.
After I posted my answer, wondered if your expected result is get only one date by temperature, In other words, without repeated dates in your result set.
A side note: select distinct([date]),Temperature from Device47A8F where Temperature>25 returns repeated dates since DISTINCT keyword evaluate distinct columns values specified in the SELECT statement, it doesn't return distinct values in a specific column even if you surround it with parenthesis.
Now what brings us here. What I can see in your error is that you are trying to use a table-valued (produces a table with multiple columns) expression in a measure which only accepts scalar-valued (calculate only one value).
Supposing you have a table like this:
Running your SQL query you will get the highlighted in yellow rows:
You can see 01/09/2016 date is repeated. If you want to create a measure you have to define what calculation you want to show for temperature. i.e, average, max or min etc.
In the below expression is being calculated the maximum temperature greater than 25 per date:
MaxTempGreaterThan25 =
CALCULATE ( MAX ( Device47A8F[Temperature] ), Device47A8F[Temperature] > 25 )
In this case the measure MaxTempGreaterThan25 is calculated per date.
If you don't want to produce a measure but a table. In the Power BI Tool bar select Modeling tab and click New Table icon.
Use this expression:
MyTemperatureTable =
FILTER ( Device47A8F, Device47A8F[Temperature] > 25 )
It should produce a new table named MyTemperatureTable like this:
I recommend you learn some basics about DAX, it is pretty different from SQL / T-SQL and there are things you can't do depending on your model and data.
Let me know if this helps.
You probably don't need to write any code if your objective is to show the result in a Power BI visual e.g. a table. Power BI naturally aggregates data if the datatype is numeric (e.g. Temperature).
I would just add a Table visual on a Report page and add the Date and Temperature columns to it. Then in Visualizations / Fields / Values I would click the little down-arrow on the Temperature field and set the Aggregation e.g. Maximum. Then in Visualizations / Fields / Filters I would click the little down-arrow on the Temperature field and set the Filter e.g. is greater than: 25
Hard-coded solutions are unlikely to survive the next question from your users e.g. "but what if I want to see Temperature > 24? Or 20? Or 30?"
I have some entries in my database, in my case Videos with a rating and popularity and other factors. Of all these factors I calculate a likelihood factor or more to say a boost factor.
So I essentially have the fields ID and BOOST.The boost is calculated in a way that it turns out as an integer that represents the percentage of how often this entry should be hit in in comparison.
ID Boost
1 1
2 2
3 7
So if I run my random function indefinitely I should end up with X hits on ID 1, twice as much on ID 2 and 7 times as much on ID 3.
So every hit should be random but with a probability of (boost / sum of boosts). So the probability for ID 3 in this example should be 0.7 (because the sum is 10. I choose those values for simplicity).
I thought about something like the following query:
SELECT id FROM table WHERE CEIL(RAND() * MAX(boost)) >= boost ORDER BY rand();
Unfortunately that doesn't work, after considering the following entries in the table:
ID Boost
1 1
2 2
It will, with a 50/50 chance, have only the 2nd or both elements to choose from randomly.
So 0.5 hit goes to the second element
And 0.5 hit goes to the (second and first) element which is chosen from randomly so so 0.25 each.
So we end up with a 0.25/0.75 ratio, but it should be 0.33/0.66
I need some modification or new a method to do this with good performance.
I also thought about storing the boost field cumulatively so I just do a range query from (0-sum()), but then I would have to re-index everything coming after one item if I change it or develop some swapping algorithm or something... but that's really not elegant and stuff.
Both inserting/updating and selecting should be fast!
Do you have any solutions to this problem?
The best use case to think of is probably advertisement delivery. "Please choose a random ad with given probability"... however i need it for another purpose but just to give you a last picture what it should do.
edit:
Thanks to kens answer i thought about the following approach:
calculate a random value from 0-sum(distinct boost)
SET #randval = (select ceil(rand() * sum(DISTINCT boost)) from test);
select the boost factor from all distinct boost factors which added up surpasses the random value
then we have in our 1st example 1 with a 0.1, 2 with a 0.2 and 7 with a 0.7 probability.
now select one random entry from all entries having this boost factor
PROBLEM: because the count of entries having one boost is always different. For example if there is only 1-boosted entry i get it in 1 of 10 calls, but if there are 1 million with 7, each of them is hardly ever returned...
so this doesnt work out :( trying to refine it.
I have to somehow include the count of entries with this boost factor ... but i am somehow stuck on that...
You need to generate a random number per row and weight it.
In this case, RAND(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) gets around the "per query" evaluation of RAND. Then simply multiply it by boost and ORDER BY the result DESC. The SUM..OVER gives you the total boost
DECLARE #sample TABLE (id int, boost int)
INSERT #sample VALUES (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 7)
SELECT
RAND(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) * boost AS weighted,
SUM(boost) OVER () AS boostcount,
id
FROM
#sample
GROUP BY
id, boost
ORDER BY
weighted DESC
If you have wildly different boost values (which I think you mentioned), I'd also consider using LOG (which is base e) to smooth the distribution.
Finally, ORDER BY NEWID() is a randomness that would take no account of boost. It's useful to seed RAND but not by itself.
This sample was put together on SQL Server 2008, BTW
I dare to suggest straightforward solution with two queries, using cumulative boost calculation.
First, select sum of boosts, and generate some number between 0 and boost sum:
select ceil(rand() * sum(boost)) from table;
This value should be stored as a variable, let's call it {random_number}
Then, select table rows, calculating cumulative sum of boosts, and find the first row, which has cumulative boost greater than {random number}:
SET #cumulative_boost=0;
SELECT
id,
#cumulative_boost:=(#cumulative_boost + boost) AS cumulative_boost,
FROM
table
WHERE
cumulative_boost >= {random_number}
ORDER BY id
LIMIT 1;
My problem was similar: Every person had a calculated number of tickets in the final draw. If you had more tickets then you would have an higher chance to win "the lottery".
Since I didn't trust any of the found results rand() * multiplier or the one with -log(rand()) on the web I wanted to implement my own straightforward solution.
What I did and in your case would look a little bit like this:
(SELECT id, boost FROM foo) AS values
INNER JOIN (
SELECT id % 100 + 1 AS counter
FROM user
GROUP BY counter) AS numbers ON numbers.counter <= values.boost
ORDER BY RAND()
Since I don't have to run it often I don't really care about future performance and at the moment it was fast for me.
Before I used this query I checked two things:
The maximum number of boost is less than the maximum returned in the number query
That the inner query returns ALL numbers between 1..100. It might not depending on your table!
Since I have all distinct numbers between 1..100 then joining on numbers.counter <= values.boost would mean that if a row has a boost of 2 it would end up duplicated in the final result. If a row has a boost of 100 it would end up in the final set 100 times. Or in another words. If sum of boosts is 4212 which it was in my case you would have 4212 rows in the final set.
Finally I let MySql sort it randomly.
Edit: For the inner query to work properly make sure to use a large table, or make sure that the id's don't skip any numbers. Better yet and probably a bit faster you might even create a temporary table which would simply have all numbers between 1..n. Then you could simply use INNER JOIN numbers ON numbers.id <= values.boost