I have two tables called resource and resource_owners.
The resource_owners table contains two columns called resource_id and owner_id.
resource_id | owner_id |
-------------+-----------
The resource table contains two relevant columns: parentresource_id and id.
parentresource_id | id |
-------------------+------
resource_owners.resource_id, resource.id and resource.parentresource_id are all join columns between the two tables. Now what I want to do is the following:
For every row in the resource table, take the value in id, match it with a corresponding resource_owners.resource_id, retrieve the corresponding resource_owners.owner_id value (call it $owner_value), then set resource_owners.owner_id to $owner_value where resource_owners.resource_id equals resource.parentresource_id.
In conversational terms, this is what I want to do: For each resource, I want to re-assign the parent-resource's owner_id to be the resource's owner_id.
I've tried to wrap my head around this problem and it looks like I'll need two different table joins (resource.id with resource_owners.resource_id and resource.parentresource_id with resource_owners.resource_id).
Can someone point me in the right direction? Is what I want even possible with a single query? I'm okay with a PostgreSQL script as well if that works better for my use case.
I'm not sure what database you are using but you should be able to accomplish using the logic below if I understood your question correctly:
UPDATE RESOURCE_OWNER SET
OWNER_ID = UP.OWNER_ID
FROM (SELECT rc.ID, TMP.OWNER_ID FROM (SELECT RSC.ID, ROWRS.OWNER_ID, ROWRS.RESOURCE_ID FROM RESOURCE RSC JOIN RESOURCE_OWNER ROWRS
ON RSC.ID = ROWRS.RESOURCE_ID) TMP JOIN RESOURCE rc on rc.PARENTRESOURCE_ID = TMP.RESOURCE_ID) UP WHERE RESOURCE_OWNER.RESOURCE_ID = UP.ID;
Related
Imagine I have four tables:
Agents
| agent_id | agent_name |
Teams
| team_id | team_name |agent_id |
Menu
| menu_id | menu_name |
Team_assignment
| menu_id | team_id|
I need to write a query that selects all agents that are assigned to all teams and all queues and disregard the ones that are not assigned to a queue. Note that every agent is always assigned to a team but it's not necessary that the agent is assigned to a queue.
Since you stated that this is for a school project, I'll try to stay within the guidelines mentioned here: How do I ask and answer homework questions?
From what I can make up from your question you basically want to select all the data from the different tables joining them on one of the columns in the first table a equals = a column from the second table b. Most commonly where the primary key from one table equals the foreign key from another table. Then you want to add conditions to your query where for example some column from table 1 equals = some value.
Do you catch my drift? 😏
No?
You want to SELECT a.*, b.* everything FROM table Agents a JOINing table Teams b ON column a.agent_id being equal to = column b.agent_id
You probably want to JOIN another table, lets say Team_assignment c ON column c.team_id being equal to = b.team_id.
You can JOIN more tables in the same way.
Sadly, I do not understand what you mean by the ones that are not assigned to a queue but it sounds like a condition that your query needs to match, so WHERE the potential column a.is_assigned_to_queue equals = true AND for example a.agent_name IS NOT NULL
If you got this far you should have been able to catch onto my drift 😎, congrats. This way hopefully you also got a better understanding of how building query works, instead of me just blatantly giving you the answer and you learn nothing from it. Like this:
SELECT a.*, b.*, c.*, d.* FROM Agents a
JOIN Teams b ON a.agent_id = b.agent_id
JOIN Team_assignment c ON c.team_id = b.team_id
JOIN Menu d ON d.menu_id = c.menu_id
WHERE a.is_assigned_to_queue = true
AND a.agent_name IS NOT NULL;
Now it is possible copy and pasting the snippet above will not work, that is because I'm not an SQL expert and I had to refresh my old memories about SQL myself by googling it. But that's the nice part of actually learning it. Being able to explain it to someone else :)
I am making a relational database using tags. The database has three tables:
object
match
tag
where match is a simple relation between an object and a tag (i.e. each entry consists of a primary key and two foreign keys). I want to structure a query where I can find all objects with all given tags, but am uncertain how to do it.
For instance, these are the three tables:
Object
Death becomes her
Billy Madison
Tag
Comedy
Horror
Match
1 | 1
1 | 2
2 | 1
Given that someone wants a horror-comedy, how do I structure the query to find only the objects with all matches? I realize this is elementary but I genuinely haven't found any answers. If the whole schema is off naturally feel free to point that out.
For the record I'm using Python, SQLAlchemy, and SQLite. Currently I've made a list of all tag IDs to find in Match.
Edit: For any future reference, I used astentx' solution with a slight modification to the query in order to access data from object right away:
select object.Length, object.title
from object
join match
on object.id = match.object
join tag
on match.tag = tag.id
join filter_tags
on tag.name = filter_tags.word
You can pass all your tags as array and use Carray() function or as comma-separated string and transform it to table in this way, for example.
Then for AND condition select rows that have exactly the same tags as you've expected:
select relation.obj_id
from relation
join tags
on relation.tag_id = tags.id
join <generated table>
on tagsvalue = <generated table>.value
group by relation.obj_id
having count(1) = (select count(1) from <generated table>)
Fiddle here.
I have two tables: violator_state and violator_tags
violator_state:
m_state_id
is_violating
m_translatedid
m_tag
m_violator_tag
This table holds the "tags" which has an unchanging row count of 10 in this case. The purpose is to list out each tag present, connect the full tag address (m_violator_tag) with its shorthand name (m_tag) and state whether it is in "violation". I need to use this table as reference because of the link between m_violator_tag and m_tag.
violator_tags
m_violator_id
m_eval_time_from
m_eval_time_to
m_tag
m_tag_peers
m_tag_position
This table is constantly having new rows added to it holding the information of what tags are in violation with a specific tag. So it would show T6 in violation with T1,T2,T9 ect.
I am looking to create a query which joins the two tables to show only the most recently updated (largest m_eval_time_from) for each tag.
I am using the following query to join the two tables but I expect m_translatedid and m_tag to match but they do not. Unsure why.
SELECT violator_state.m_violator_tag, violator_state.is_violating, violator_state.m_translatedid, violator_tags.m_tag, violator_tags.m_eval_time_to, violator_tags.m_tag_peers,
violator_tags.m_tag_position, violator_tags.m_eval_time_from
FROM violator_tags CROSS JOIN
violator_state
Violation_state table
violation_tags table
results of my (incorrect) query
Any suggestions on what I should try?
Your CROSS JOIN will give you a cartesian product where EVERY row in the first table is paired with ALL the rows in the second table e.g. if you have 10 rows in each, you will get 10 x 10 = 100 rows in the result! I believe you need to join the tables on the m_tag column and select the violator_tags row with the latest date. The query below should do this for you (though you haven't provided your question in a manner that makes it easy for me to double-check my code - see the link provided by a_horse_with_no_name for more on this or use a website like db-fiddle to set up your example).
SELECT vs.m_violator_tag,
vs.is_violating,
vs.m_translatedid,
vt.m_tag,
vt.m_eval_time_to,
vt.m_tag_peers,
vt.m_tag_position,
vt.m_eval_time_from
FROM violator_tags vt
JOIN violator_state vs
ON vt.m_tag = vs.m_tag
AND vt.m_eval_time_from = (SELECT MAX(vt.m_eval_time_from)
FROM violator_tags
WHERE m_tag = vt.m_tag)
Okay, so I've got two tables. One table (table 1) contains a column Books_Owned_ID which stores a series of numbers in the form of 1,3,7. I have another table (table 2) which stores the Book names in one column and the book ID in another column.
What I want to do is create an SQL code which will take the numbers from Books_Owned_IDand display the names of those books in a new column. Like so:
|New Column |
Book 1 Name
Book 2 Name
Book 3 Name
I can't wrap my head around this, it's simple enough but all the threads I look on get really confusing.
Table1 contains the following columns:
|First_Name| Last_Name| Books_Owned_ID |
Table2 contains the following columns:
|Book_Name|Book_ID|
You need to do an inner join. This is a great example/reference for these
SELECT Book_Name FROM Table2
INNER JOIN Table1
ON Table1.Books_Owned_ID = Table2.Book_ID
EDIT SQL Fiddle
I will work on getting the column comma split working. It wont be a lot extra for this.
EDIT 2 See this answer to build a function to split your string. Then you can do this:
SELECT Book_Name FROM Table2
WHERE Book_ID IN(SELECT FN_ListToTable(',',Table1.Books_Owned_ID) FROM Table1 s)
The core of this centers around data normalisation... Each fact is stored only once (and so is "authoritative"). You should also get into the habit of only storing a single fact in any field.
So, imagine the following table layouts...
Books
Id, Name, Description
Users
Id, Username, EmailAddress, PasswordHash, etc....
BooksOwned
UserId, BookId
So if a single user owns multiple books, there will be multiple entries in the BooksOwned table...
UserId, BookID
1, 1
1, 2
1, 3
Indicates that User 1 owns books 1 through 3.
The reason to do it this way is that it makes it much easier to query in future. You also treat BookId as an Integer instead of a string containing a list - so you don't need to worry about string manipulation to do your query.
The following would return the name of all books owned by the user with Id = 1
SELECT Books.Name
FROM BooksOwned
INNER JOIN Books
ON BooksOwned.BookId = Books.Id
WHERE BooksOwned.UserId = 1
You need a function which takes a comma separated list and returns a table. This is slow and fundamentally a bad idea. Really all this does is convert this way of doing it to be like the data model I describe below. (see ProfessionalAmateur's answer for an example of this).
If you are just starting change your data model. Make a linking table. Like this:
Okay, so I've got two tables. One table (table 1) contains a column Books_Owned_ID which stores a series of numbers in the form of 1,3,7. I have another table (table 2) which stores the Book names in one column and the book ID in another column.
What I want to do is create an SQL code which will take the numbers from Books_Owned_IDand display the names of those books in a new column. Like so:
Person Table
|First_Name| Last_Name| Person_ID |
Book Table
|Book_Name|Book_ID|
PersonBook Table
|PersonID|BookID|
This table can have more than one row for each person.
Downloads table:
id (primary key)
user_id
item_id
created_at
updated_at
The user_id and item_id in this case are both incorrect, however, they're properly stored in the users and items table, respectively (import_id for in each table). Here's what I'm trying to script:
downloads.each do |download|
user = User.find_by_import_id(download.user_id)
item = item.find_by_import_id(download.item_id)
if user && item
download.update_attributes(:user_id => user.id, :item.id => item.id)
end
end
So,
look up the user and item based on
their respective "import_id"'s. Then
update those values in the download record
This takes forever with a ton of rows. Anyway to do this in SQL?
If I understand you correctly, you simply need to add two sub-querys in your SELECT statement to lookup the correct IDs. For example:
SELECT id,
(SELECT correct_id FROM User WHERE import_id=user_id) AS UserID,
(SELECT correct_id FROM Item WHERE import_id=item_id) AS ItemID,
created_at,
updated_at
FROM Downloads
This will translate your incorrect user_ids to whatever ID you want to come from the User table and it will do the same for your item_ids. The information coming from SQL will now be correct.
If, however, you want to update the tables with the correct information, you could write this like so:
UPDATE Downloads
SET user_id = User.user_id,
item_id = Item.item_id
FROM Downloads
INNER JOIN User ON Downloads.user_id = User.import_id
INNER JOIN Item ON Downloads.item_id = Item.import_id
WHERE ...
Make sure to put something in the WHERE clause so you don't update every record in the Downloads table (unless that is the plan). I rewrote the above statement to be a bit more optimized since the original version had two SELECT statements per row, which is a bit intense.
Edit:
Since this is PostgreSQL, you can't have the table name in both the UPDATE and the FROM section. Instead, the tables in the FROM section are joined to the table being updated. Here is a quote about this from the PostgreSQL website:
When a FROM clause is present, what essentially happens is that the target table is joined to the tables mentioned in the fromlist, and each output row of the join represents an update operation for the target table. When using FROM you should ensure that the join produces at most one output row for each row to be modified. In other words, a target row shouldn't join to more than one row from the other table(s). If it does, then only one of the join rows will be used to update the target row, but which one will be used is not readily predictable.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-update.html
With this in mind, here is an example that I think should work (can't test it, sorry):
UPDATE Downloads
SET user_id = User.user_id,
item_id = Item.item_id
FROM User, Item
WHERE Downloads.user_id = User.import_id AND
Downloads.item_id = Item.import_id
That is the basic idea. Don't forget you will still need to add extra criteria to the WHERE section to limit the rows that are updated.
i'm totally guessing from your question, but you have some kind of lookup table that will match an import user_id with the real user_id, and similarly from items. i.e. the assumption is your line of code:
User.find_by_import_id(download.user_id)
hits the database to do the lookup. the import_users / import_items tables are just the names i've given to the lookup tables to do this.
UPDATE downloads
SET downloads.user_id = users.user_id
, downloads.item_id = items.items_id
FROM downloads
INNER JOIN import_users ON downloads.user_id = import_users.import_user_id
INNER JOIN import_items ON downloads.item_id = import_items.import_item_id
Either way (lookup is in DB, or it's derived from code), would it not just be easier to insert the information correctly in the first place? this would mean you can't have any FK's on your table since sometimes they point to one table, and others they point to another. seems a bit odd.