I am looking for something like below . Let me know if we have a way to do it .
Scenario Outline : Verify
Examples :
| name | rollno | marks |
| raj | 110 | |science | maths | test | |
| 95 | 20 | finaltest |
| 100 | 20 | midterm |
Nested data tables are not supported in examples.
Why not move the science, maths marks up a level instead?
Or you could use a delimited string of all the subject and marks in one column - Science$95#Maths$20... Split this in your step definition to create your objects etc.
Or one column with a delimited string of subjects and another a delimited string with marks of the respective subjects. Makes things clearer than one string but you will need the splitting logic twice.
Related
I am new to Access and am trying to develop a query that will allow me to count the number of occurrences of one word in each field from a table with 15 fields.
The table simply stores test results for employees. There is one table that stores the employee identification - id, name, etc.
The second table has 15 fields - A1 through A15 with the words correct or incorrect in each field. I need the total number of incorrect occurrences for each field, not for the entire table.
Is there an answer through Query Design, or is code required?
The solution, whether Query Design, or code, would be greatly appreciated!
Firstly, one of the reasons that you are struggling to obtain the desired result for what should be a relatively straightforward request is because your data does not follow database normalisation rules, and consequently, you are working against the natural operation of a RDBMS when querying your data.
From your description, I assume that the fields A1 through A15 are answers to questions on a test.
By representing these as separate fields within your database, aside from the inherent difficulty in querying the resulting data (as you have discovered), if ever you wanted to add or remove a question to/from the test, you would be forced to restructure your entire database!
Instead, I would suggest structuring your table in the following way:
Results
+------------+------------+-----------+
| EmployeeID | QuestionID | Result |
+------------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | 1 | correct |
| 1 | 2 | incorrect |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 1 | 15 | correct |
| 2 | 1 | correct |
| 2 | 2 | correct |
| ... | ... | ... |
+------------+------------+-----------+
This table would be a junction table (a.k.a. linking / cross-reference table) in your database, supporting a many-to-many relationship between the tables Employees & Questions, which might look like the following:
Employees
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----+
| Emp_ID | Emp_FName | Emp_LName | Emp_DOB | Emp_Gender | ... |
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----+
| 1 | Joe | Bloggs | 01/01/1969 | M | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----+
Questions
+-------+------------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Qu_ID | Qu_Desc | Qu_Ans |
+-------+------------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| 1 | What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? | 42 |
| ... | ... | ... |
+-------+------------------------------------------------------------+--------+
With this structure, if ever you wish to add or remove a question from the test, you can simply add or remove a record from the table without needing to restructure your database or rewrite any of the queries, forms, or reports which depends upon the existing structure.
Furthermore, since the result of an answer is likely to be a binary correct or incorrect, then this would be better (and far more efficiently) represented using a Boolean True/False data type, e.g.:
Results
+------------+------------+--------+
| EmployeeID | QuestionID | Result |
+------------+------------+--------+
| 1 | 1 | True |
| 1 | 2 | False |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 1 | 15 | True |
| 2 | 1 | True |
| 2 | 2 | True |
| ... | ... | ... |
+------------+------------+--------+
Not only does this consume less memory in your database, but this may be indexed far more efficiently (yielding faster queries), and removes all ambiguity and potential for error surrounding typos & case sensitivity.
With this new structure, if you wanted to see the number of correct answers for each employee, the query can be something as simple as:
select results.employeeid, count(*)
from results
where results.result = true
group by results.employeeid
Alternatively, if you wanted to view the number of employees answering each question correctly (for example, to understand which questions most employees got wrong), you might use something like:
select results.questionid, count(*)
from results
where results.result = true
group by results.questionid
The above are obviously very basic example queries, and you would likely want to join the Results table to an Employees table and a Questions table to obtain richer information about the results.
Contrast the above with your current database structure -
Per your original question:
The second table has 15 fields - A1 through A15 with the words correct or incorrect in each field. I need the total number of incorrect occurrences for each field, not for the entire table.
Assuming that you want to view the number of incorrect answers by employee, you are forced to use an incredibly messy query such as the following:
select
employeeid,
iif(A1='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A2='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A3='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A4='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A5='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A6='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A7='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A8='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A9='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A10='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A11='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A12='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A13='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A14='incorrect',1,0)+
iif(A15='incorrect',1,0) as IncorrectAnswers
from
YourTable
Here, notice that the answer numbers are also hard-coded into the query, meaning that if you decide to add a new question or remove an existing question, not only would you need to restructure your entire database, but queries such as the above would also need to be rewritten.
I have a table (e.g. Users) in PostgreSQL database. Its size is relatively large (ca. 4 GB of data) and I would like to get a table/result consisting of single rows fulfilling the select query. This query shall be executed for each element in an array of strings (couple dozens of elements).
Example single select for one element:
SELECT * FROM "Users" WHERE "Surname" LIKE 'Smith%' LIMIT 1
Value between ' and %' should be an element of input array.
EDIT: It doesn't matter for me whether I get record no. 1 or 2 for LIKE 'Smith%'
How can I achieve this?
I tried to append query results to some array variable within FOREACH loop but with no success.
Example source table:
| Id | Name | Surname |
|---- |-------- |---------- |
| 1 | John | Smiths |
| 2 | Adam | Smith |
| 3 | George | Kowalsky |
| 4 | George | Kowalsky |
| 5 | Susan | Connor |
| 6 | Clare | Connory |
| 7 | Susan | Connor |
And for ['Smith', 'Connor'] the output is:
| Id | Name | Surname |
|----|-------|---------|
| 1 | John | Smiths |
| 5 | Susan | Connor |
In Postgres you can use the ANY operator to compare a single value to all values of an array. This also works with together with the LIKE operator.
SELECT *
FROM "Users"
WHERE "Surname" like ANY (array['Smith%', 'Connor%'])
Note that LIKE is case sensitive, if you don't want that, you can use ILIKE
This will show you the logic. Syntax is up to you.
where 1 = 2
start of loop
or surname like 'Array Element goes here%'
end of loop
I was wondering what the easiest way would be to get the data I needed.
I am not sure if it is even possible to add columns like that or not. If so I am not sure where the easiest place to accomplish this would be.
Excel Formula, SQL, or VBA code?
I have a huge list of names and what I want to do is take all of the data for a name and get all the unique data from the table then put it in a list basically.
Any help would be appreciated.
DATA
Name | FirstID | SecondID | ThirdID | FourthID | FifthID |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Smith | AB.5 | AC.1 | AH.9 | ZZ.4 | BB.9 |
Joe Smith | DD.7 | AC.1 | AD.3 | XD.5 | BB.9 |
Joe Smith | RV.4 | AC.1 | AD.3 | ZZ.4 | BB.9 |
Joe Smith | AB.5 | AC.1 | AD.3 | ZZ.4 | BB.9 |
Desired Results
Name
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Smith | AB.5 | AC.1 | AH.9 | ZZ.4 | BB.9 | DD.7 | AD.3 | XD.5 | RV.4 |
This should be a fairly easy task, so Ill let you know what youd need to do to get this results
1) Learn to open and go through a recordset using vba. Plenty of articles on it and its super easy.
2) Your SQL for this would be SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE Name ='thename'
3) Learn how to store values in an array, or a new tables
4) learn how to check your array or table for preexisting values from the current step in your recordset, and if not there add it(the value in the current spot in the recordset that is).
Happy coding and good luck! Come back when you have tried something and have code to show
I have a pair of models in my Rails app that I'm having trouble bridging.
These are the tables I'm working with:
states
+----+--------+------------+
| id | fips | name |
+----+--------+------------+
| 1 | 06 | California |
| 2 | 36 | New York |
| 3 | 48 | Texas |
| 4 | 12 | Florida |
| 5 | 17 | Illinois |
| … | … | … |
+----+--------+------------+
places
+----+--------+
| id | place |
+----+--------+
| 1 | Fl |
| 2 | Calif. |
| 3 | Texas |
| … | … |
+----+--------+
Not all places are represented in the states model, but I'm trying to perform a query where I can compare a place's place value against all state names, find the closest match, and return the corresponding fips.
So if my input is Calif., I want my output to be 06
I'm still very new to writing SQL queries, so if there's a way to do this using Ruby within my Rails (4.1.5) app, that would be ideal.
My other plan of attack was to add a fips column to the "places" table, and write something that would run the above comparison and then populate fips so my app doesn't have to run this query every the page loads. But I'm very much a beginner, so that sounds... ambitious.
This is not an easy query in SQL. Your best bet is one of the fuzzing string matching routines, which are documented here.
For instance, soundex() or levenshtein() may be sufficient for what you want. Here is an example:
select distinct on (p.place) p.place, s.name, s.fips, levenshtein(p.place, s.name) as dist
from places p cross join
states s
order by p.place, dist asc;
I've created a form in PHP that collects basic information. I have a list box that allows multiple items selected (i.e. Housing, rent, food, water). If multiple items are selected they are stored in a field called Needs separated by a comma.
I have created a report ordered by the persons needs. The people who only have one need are sorted correctly, but the people who have multiple are sorted exactly as the string passed to the database (i.e. housing, rent, food, water) --> which is not what I want.
Is there a way to separate the multiple values in this field using SQL to count each need instance/occurrence as 1 so that there are no comma delimitations shown in the results?
Your database is not in the first normal form. A non-normalized database will be very problematic to use and to query, as you are actually experiencing.
In general, you should be using at least the following structure. It can still be normalized further, but I hope this gets you going in the right direction:
CREATE TABLE users (
user_id int,
name varchar(100)
);
CREATE TABLE users_needs (
need varchar(100),
user_id int
);
Then you should store the data as follows:
-- TABLE: users
+---------+-------+
| user_id | name |
+---------+-------+
| 1 | joe |
| 2 | peter |
| 3 | steve |
| 4 | clint |
+---------+-------+
-- TABLE: users_needs
+---------+----------+
| need | user_id |
+---------+----------+
| housing | 1 |
| water | 1 |
| food | 1 |
| housing | 2 |
| rent | 2 |
| water | 2 |
| housing | 3 |
+---------+----------+
Note how the users_needs table is defining the relationship between one user and one or many needs (or none at all, as for user number 4.)
To normalise your database further, you should also use another table called needs, and as follows:
-- TABLE: needs
+---------+---------+
| need_id | name |
+---------+---------+
| 1 | housing |
| 2 | water |
| 3 | food |
| 4 | rent |
+---------+---------+
Then the users_needs table should just refer to a candidate key of the needs table instead of repeating the text.
-- TABLE: users_needs (instead of the previous one)
+---------+----------+
| need_id | user_id |
+---------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
+---------+----------+
You may also be interested in checking out the following Wikipedia article for further reading about repeating values inside columns:
Wikipedia: First normal form - Repeating groups within columns
UPDATE:
To fully answer your question, if you follow the above guidelines, sorting, counting and aggregating the data should then become straight-forward.
To sort the result-set by needs, you would be able to do the following:
SELECT users.name, needs.name
FROM users
INNER JOIN needs ON (needs.user_id = users.user_id)
ORDER BY needs.name;
You would also be able to count how many needs each user has selected, for example:
SELECT users.name, COUNT(needs.need) as number_of_needs
FROM users
LEFT JOIN needs ON (needs.user_id = users.user_id)
GROUP BY users.user_id, users.name
ORDER BY number_of_needs;
I'm a little confused by the goal. Is this a UI problem or are you just having trouble determining who has multiple needs?
The number of needs is the difference:
Len([Needs]) - Len(Replace([Needs],',','')) + 1
Can you provide more information about the Sort you're trying to accomplish?
UPDATE:
I think these Oracle-based posts may have what you're looking for: post and post. The only difference is that you would probably be better off using the method I list above to find the number of comma-delimited pieces rather than doing the translate(...) that the author suggests. Hope this helps - it's Oracle-based, but I don't see .