Have a query that uses double select (with select max) to fetch the row with the latest 'calculation_time' column among multiple rows which can have the same 'patient_set_id'. If there are multiple rows with the same 'patient_set_id', only the row with the latest 'calculation_time' should be retrieved. Calculation time is a date.
So far I've tried this but I'm not really sure if there is any better way for this, maybe using ORDER BY. But I'm very new to sql and need to know which one would be the fastest and more appropriate?
SELECT median from diagnostic_risk_stats WHERE
calculation_time=(SELECT MAX(calculation_time) FROM diagnostic_risk_stats WHERE
patient_set_id = UNHEX(REPLACE('5a9dbfca-74d6-471a-af27-31beb4b53bb2', "-","")));
You can use not exists as follows:
SELECT median
from diagnostic_risk_stats t
WHERE not exists
(Select 1 from diagnostic_risk_stats tt
Where t.patient_set_id = tt.patient_set_id
And tt.calculation_time > t.calculation_time)
And t.patient_set_id = UNHEX(REPLACE('5a9dbfca-74d6-471a-af27-31beb4b53bb2', "-",""));
I need to compare current row and previous row and based on some comparision need to derive a column value. Currently apporach I m following is making two differnt record sets and then use rank function and then by joining rank functions I m able to achiieve this. However, this seems to be tedious apporach, is there a better way to achieve this. I m currently writing query something like below :-
select
< comparing columns from two record sets and deriving column value>
(
select(<some complex logic>, rank from a) rcdset,
(select <some complex logic>, rank +1 from a) rcdset2 where rcdset.rnk = rcdset1.rnk (+)
Database - Oracle 10g
Use LAG(value_expr) OVER (ORDER BY rank_col) to retrieve the value (value_expr) from previous row (order defined by rank_col), see http://oracle-base.com/articles/misc/lag-lead-analytic-functions.php
Suppose I have a database of athletic meeting results with a schema as follows
DATE,NAME,FINISH_POS
I wish to do a query to select all rows where an athlete has competed in at least three events without winning. For example with the following sample data
2013-06-22,Johnson,2
2013-06-21,Johnson,1
2013-06-20,Johnson,4
2013-06-19,Johnson,2
2013-06-18,Johnson,3
2013-06-17,Johnson,4
2013-06-16,Johnson,3
2013-06-15,Johnson,1
The following rows:
2013-06-20,Johnson,4
2013-06-19,Johnson,2
Would be matched. I have only managed to get started at the following stub:
select date,name FROM table WHERE ...;
I've been trying to wrap my head around the where clause but I can't even get a start
I think this can be even simpler / faster:
SELECT day, place, athlete
FROM (
SELECT *, min(place) OVER (PARTITION BY athlete
ORDER BY day
ROWS 3 PRECEDING) AS best
FROM t
) sub
WHERE best > 1
->SQLfiddle
Uses the aggregate function min() as window function to get the minimum place of the last three rows plus the current one.
The then trivial check for "no win" (best > 1) has to be done on the next query level since window functions are applied after the WHERE clause. So you need at least one CTE of sub-select for a condition on the result of a window function.
Details about window function calls in the manual here. In particular:
If frame_end is omitted it defaults to CURRENT ROW.
If place (finishing_pos) can be NULL, use this instead:
WHERE best IS DISTINCT FROM 1
min() ignores NULL values, but if all rows in the frame are NULL, the result is NULL.
Don't use type names and reserved words as identifiers, I substituted day for your date.
This assumes at most 1 competition per day, else you have to define how to deal with peers in the time line or use timestamp instead of date.
#Craig already mentioned the index to make this fast.
Here's an alternative formulation that does the work in two scans without subqueries:
SELECT
"date", athlete, place
FROM (
SELECT
"date",
place,
athlete,
1 <> ALL (array_agg(place) OVER w) AS include_row
FROM Table1
WINDOW w AS (PARTITION BY athlete ORDER BY "date" ASC ROWS BETWEEN 3 PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW)
) AS history
WHERE include_row;
See: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!1/fa3a4/34
The logic here is pretty much a literal translation of the question. Get the last four placements - current and the previous 3 - and return any rows in which the athlete didn't finish first in any of them.
Because the window frame is the only place where the number of rows of history to consider is defined, you can parameterise this variant unlike my previous effort (obsolete, http://sqlfiddle.com/#!1/fa3a4/31), so it works for the last n for any n. It's also a lot more efficient than the last try.
I'd be really interested in the relative efficiency of this vs #Andomar's query when executed on a dataset of non-trivial size. They're pretty much exactly the same on this tiny dataset. An index on Table1(athlete, "date") would be required for this to perform optimally on a large data set.
; with CTE as
(
select row_number() over (partition by athlete order by date) rn
, *
from Table1
)
select *
from CTE cur
where not exists
(
select *
from CTE prev
where prev.place = 1
and prev.athlete = cur.athlete
and prev.rn between cur.rn - 3 and cur.rn
)
Live example at SQL Fiddle.
I have the below query. The problem is the last column productdesc is returning two records and the query fails because of distinct. Now i need to add one more column in where clause of the select query so that it returns one record. The issue is that the column i need
to add should not be a part of group by clause.
SELECT product_billing_id,
billing_ele,
SUM(round(summary_net_amt_excl_gst/100)) gross,
(SELECT DISTINCT description
FROM RES.tariff_nt
WHERE product_billing_id = aa.product_billing_id
AND billing_ele = aa.billing_ele) productdescr
FROM bil.bill_sum aa
WHERE file_id = 38613 --1=1
AND line_type = 'D'
AND (product_billing_id, billing_ele) IN (SELECT DISTINCT
product_billing_id,
billing_ele
FROM bil.bill_l2 )
AND trans_type_desc <> 'Change'
GROUP BY product_billing_id, billing_ele
I want to modify the select statement to the below way by adding a new filter to the where clause so that it returns one record .
(SELECT DISTINCT description
FROM RRES.tariff_nt
WHERE product_billing_id = aa.product_billing_id
AND billing_ele = aa.billing_ele
AND (rate_structure_start_date <= TO_DATE(aa.p_effective_date,'yyyymmdd')
AND rate_structure_end_date > TO_DATE(aa.p_effective_date,'yyyymmdd'))
) productdescr
The aa.p_effective_date should not be a part of GROUP BY clause. How can I do it? Oracle is the Database.
So there are multiple RES.tariff records for a given product_billing_id/billing_ele, differentiated by the start/end dates
You want the description for the record that encompasses the 'p_effective_date' from bil.bill_sum. The kicker is that you can't (or don't want to) include that in the group by. That suggests you've got multiple rows in bil.bill_sum with different effective dates.
The issue is what do you want to happen if you are summarising up those multiple rows with different dates. Which of those dates do you want to use as the one to get the description.
If it doesn't matter, simply use MIN(aa.p_effective_date), or MAX.
Have you looked into the Oracle analytical functions. This is good link Analytical Functions by Example
I have 2 tables - an Account table and a Users table. Each account can have multiple users. I have a scenario where I want to execute a single query/join against these two tables, but I want all the Account data (Account.*) and only the first set of user data (specifically their name).
Instead of doing a "min" or "max" on my aggregated group, I wanted to do a "first". But, apparently, there is no "First" aggregate function in TSQL.
Any suggestions on how to go about getting this query? Obviously, it is easy to get the cartesian product of Account x Users:
SELECT User.Name, Account.* FROM Account, User
WHERE Account.ID = User.Account_ID
But how might I got about only getting the first user from the product based on the order of their User.ID ?
Rather than grouping, go about it like this...
select
*
from account a
join (
select
account_id,
row_number() over (order by account_id, id) -
rank() over (order by account_id) as row_num from user
) first on first.account_id = a.id and first.row_num = 0
I know my answer is a bit late, but that might help others. There is a way to achieve a First() and Last() in SQL Server, and here it is :
Stuff(Min(Convert(Varchar, DATE_FIELD, 126) + Convert(Varchar, DESIRED_FIELD)), 1, 23, '')
Use Min() for First() and Max() for Last(). The DATE_FIELD should be the date that determines if it is the first or last record. The DESIRED_FIELD is the field you want the first or the last value. What it does is :
Add the date in ISO format at the start of the string (23 characters long)
Append the DESIRED_FIELD to that string
Get the MIN/MAX value for that field (since it start with the date, you will get the first or last record)
Stuff that concatened string to remove the first 23 characters (the date part)
Here you go!
EDIT: I got problems with the first formula : when the DATE_FIELD has .000 as milliseconds, SQL Server returns the date as string with NO milliseconds at all, thus removing the first 4 characters from the DESIRED_FIELD. I simply changed the format to "20" (without milliseconds) and it works all great. The only downside is if you have two fields that were created at the same seconds, the sort can possibly be messy... in which cas you can revert to "126" for the format.
Stuff(Max(Convert(Varchar, DATE_FIELD, 20) + Convert(Varchar, DESIRED_FIELD)), 1, 19, '')
EDIT 2 : My original intent was to return the last (or first) NON NULL row. I got asked how to return the last or first row, wether it be null or not. Simply add a ISNULL to the DESIRED_FIELD. When you concatenate two strings with a + operator, when one of them is NULL, the result is NULL. So use the following :
Stuff(Max(Convert(Varchar, DATE_FIELD, 20) + IsNull(Convert(Varchar, DESIRED_FIELD), '')), 1, 19, '')
Select *
From Accounts a
Left Join (
Select u.*,
row_number() over (Partition By u.AccountKey Order By u.UserKey) as Ranking
From Users u
) as UsersRanked
on UsersRanked.AccountKey = a.AccountKey and UsersRanked.Ranking = 1
This can be simplified by using the Partition By clause. In the above, if an account has three users, then the subquery numbers them 1,2, and 3, and for a different AccountKey, it will reset the numnbering. This means for each unique AccountKey, there will always be a 1, and potentially 2,3,4, etc.
Thus you filter on Ranking=1 to grab the first from each group.
This will give you one row per account, and if there is at least one user for that account, then it will give you the user with the lowest key(because I use a left join, you will always get an account listing even if no user exists). Replace Order By u.UserKey with another field if you prefer that the first user be chosen alphabetically or some other criteria.
I've benchmarked all the methods, the simpelest and fastest method to achieve this is by using outer/cross apply
SELECT u.Name, Account.* FROM Account
OUTER APPLY (SELECT TOP 1 * FROM User WHERE Account.ID = Account_ID ) as u
CROSS APPLY works just like INNER JOIN and fetches the rows where both tables are related, while OUTER APPLY works like LEFT OUTER JOIN and fetches all rows from the left table (Account here)
You can use OUTER APPLY, see documentation.
SELECT User1.Name, Account.* FROM Account
OUTER APPLY
(SELECT TOP 1 Name
FROM [User]
WHERE Account.ID = [User].Account_ID
ORDER BY Name ASC) User1
SELECT (SELECT TOP 1 Name
FROM User
WHERE Account_ID = a.AccountID
ORDER BY UserID) [Name],
a.*
FROM Account a
The STUFF response from Dominic Goulet is slick. But, if your DATE_FIELD is SMALLDATETIME (instead of DATETIME), then the ISO 8601 length will be 19 instead of 23 (because SMALLDATETIME has no milliseconds) - so adjust the STUFF parameter accordingly or the return value from the STUFF function will be incorrect (missing the first four characters).
First and Last do not exist in Sql Server 2005 or 2008, but in Sql Server 2012 there is a First_Value, Last_Value function. I tried to implement the aggregate First and Last for Sql Server 2005 and came to the obstacle that sql server does guarantee the calculation of the aggregate in a defined order. (See attribute SqlUserDefinedAggregateAttribute.IsInvariantToOrder Property, which is not implemented.) This might be because the query analyser tries to execute the calculation of the aggregate on multiple threads and combine the results, which speeds up the execution, but does not guarantee an order in which elements are aggregated.
Define "First". What you think of as first is a coincidence that normally has to do with clustered index order but should not be relied on (you can contrive examples that break it).
You are right not to use MAX() or MIN(). While tempting, consider the scenario where you the first name and last name are in separate fields. You might get names from different records.
Since it sounds like all your really care is that you get exactly one arbitrary record for each group, what you can do is just MIN or MAX an ID field for that record, and then join the table into the query on that ID.
There are a number of ways of doing this, here a a quick and dirty one.
Select (SELECT TOP 1 U.Name FROM Users U WHERE U.Account_ID = A.ID) AS "Name,
A.*
FROM Account A
(Slightly Off-Topic, but) I often run aggregate queries to list exception summaries, and then I want to know WHY a customer is in the results, so use MIN and MAX to give 2 semi-random samples that I can look at in details e.g.
SELECT Customer.Id, COUNT(*) AS ProblemCount
, MIN(Invoice.Id) AS MinInv, MAX(Invoice.Id) AS MaxInv
FROM Customer
INNER JOIN Invoice on Invoice.CustomerId = Customer.Id
WHERE Invoice.SomethingHasGoneWrong=1
GROUP BY Customer.Id
Create and join with a subselect 'FirstUser' that returns the first user for each account
SELECT User.Name, Account.*
FROM Account, User,
(select min(user.id) id,account_id from User group by user.account_id) as firstUser
WHERE Account.ID = User.Account_ID
and User.id = firstUser.id and Account.ID = firstUser.account_id