I am new to SQL and I would like to get some insights for my problem
I am using the following query,
select id,
pid
from assoc
where id in (100422, 100414, 100421, 100419, 100423)
All these id need not have pid, some doesn't and some has pid. Currently it skips the records which doesn't have pid.
I would like a way which would show the results as below.
pid id
-----------
703 100422
313 100414
465 100421
null 100419
null 100423
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Oh, I think I've got the idea: you have to enumerate all the ids and corresponding pids. If there's no corresponding pid, put null (kind of outer join). If it's your case, then Oracle solution can be:
with
-- dummy: required ids
dummy as (
select 100422 as id from dual
union all select 100414 as id from dual
union all select 100421 as id from dual
union all select 100419 as id from dual
union all select 100423 as id from dual),
-- main: actual data we have
main as (
select id,
pid
from assoc
-- you may put "id in (select d.id from dummy d)"
where id in (100422, 100414, 100421, 100419, 100423))
-- we want to print out either existing main.pid or null
select main.pid as pid,
dummy.id as id
from dummy left join main on dummy.id = main.id
id is obtained from other table and assoc only has pid associated with id.
The assoc table seems to be the association table used to implement a many-to-many relationship between two entities in a relational database.
It contains entries only for the entities from one table that are in relationship with entities from the other table. It doesn't contain information about the entities that are not in a relationship and some of the results you want to get come from entities that are not in a relationship.
The solution for your problem is to RIGHT JOIN the table where the column id comes from and put the WHERE condition against the values retrieved from the original table (because it contains the rows you need). The RIGHT JOIN ensures all the matching rows from the right side table are included in the result set, even when they do not have matching rows in the left side table.
Assuming the table where the id column comes from is named table1, the query you need is:
SELECT assoc.id, assoc.pid
FROM assoc
RIGHT JOIN table1 ON assoc.id = table1.id
WHERE table1.id IN (100422, 100414, 100421, 100419, 100423)
Related
In Google BigQuery, I would like to delete a subset of records, based on the value of a specific column. It's a query that I need to run repeatedly and that I would like to run automatically.
The problem is that this specific column is of the form STRUCT<column_1 ARRAY (STRING), column_2 ARRAY (STRING), ... >, and I don't know how to use such a column in the where-clause when using the delete-command.
Here is basically what I am trying to do (this code does not work):
DELETE
FROM dataset.table t
LEFT JOIN UNNEST(t.category.column_1) AS type
WHERE t.partition_date = '2020-07-22'
AND type = 'some_value'
The error that I'm getting is: Syntax error: Expected end of input but got keyword LEFT at [3:1]
If I replace the DELETE with SELECT *, it does work:
SELECT *
FROM dataset.table t
LEFT JOIN UNNEST(t.category.column_1) AS type
WHERE t.partition_date = '2020-07-22'
AND type = 'some_value'
Does somebody know how to use such a column to delete a subset of records?
EDIT:
Here is some code to create a reproducible example with some silly data (fill in your own dataset and table name in all queries):
Suppose you want to delete all rows where category.type contains the value 'food'.
1 - create a table:
CREATE TABLE <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME>
(
article STRING,
category STRUCT<
color STRING,
type ARRAY<STRING>
>
);
2 - Insert data into the new table:
INSERT <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME>
SELECT "apple" AS article, STRUCT('red' AS color, ['fruit','food'] as type) AS category
UNION ALL
SELECT "cabbage" AS article, STRUCT('blue' AS color, ['vegetable', 'food'] as type) AS category
UNION ALL
SELECT "book" AS article, STRUCT('red' AS color, ['object'] as type) AS category
UNION ALL
SELECT "dog" AS article, STRUCT('green' AS color, ['animal', 'pet'] as type) AS category;
3 - Show that select works (return all rows where category.type contains the value 'food'; these are the rows I want to delete):
SELECT *
FROM <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME>
LEFT JOIN UNNEST(category.type) type
WHERE type = 'food'
Initial Result
4 - My attempt at deleting rows where category.type contains 'food' does not work:
DELETE
FROM <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME>
LEFT JOIN UNNEST(category.type) type
WHERE type = 'food'
Syntax error: Unexpected keyword LEFT at [3:1]
Desired Result
This is the code I used to delete the desired records (the records where category.type contains the value 'food'.)
DELETE
FROM <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME> t1
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM UNNEST(t1.category.type) t2 WHERE t2 = 'food')
The embarrasing thing is that I've seen these kind of answers on similar questions (for example on update-queries). But I come from Oracle-SQL and I think that there you are required to connect your subquery with your main query in the WHERE-statement of the subquery (ie. connect t1 with t2), so I didn't understand these answers. That's why I posted this question.
However, I learned that BigQuery automatically understands how to connect table t1 and 'table' t2; you don't have to explicitly connect them.
Now it is possible to still do this (perhaps even recommended?):
DELETE
FROM <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME> t1
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM <DATASET>.<TABLE_NAME> t2 LEFT JOIN UNNEST(t2.category.type) AS type WHERE type = 'food' AND t1.article=t2.article)
but a second difficulty for me was that my ID in my actual data is somehow hidden in an array>struct-construction, so I got stuck connecting t1 & t2. Fortunately this is not always an absolute necessity.
Since you did not provide any sample data I am going to explain using some dummy data. In case you add your sample data, I can update the answer.
Firstly,according to your description, you have only a STRUCT not an Array[Struct <col_1, col_2>].For this reason, you do not need to use UNNEST to access the values within the data. Below is an example how to access particular data within a STRUCT.
WITH data AS (
SELECT 1 AS id, STRUCT("Alex" AS name, 30 AS age, "NYC" AS city) AS info UNION ALL
SELECT 1 AS id, STRUCT("Leo" AS name, 18 AS age, "Sydney" AS city) AS info UNION ALL
SELECT 1 AS id, STRUCT("Robert" AS name, 25 AS age, "Paris" AS city) AS info UNION ALL
SELECT 1 AS id, STRUCT("Mary" AS name, 28 AS age, "London" AS city) AS info UNION ALL
SELECT 1 AS id, STRUCT("Ralph" AS name, 45 AS age, "London" AS city) AS info
)
SELECT * FROM data
WHERE info.city = "London"
Notice that the STRUCT is named info and the data we accessed is city and used it in the WHERE clause.
Now, in order to delete the rows that contains an specific value within the STRUCT , in your case I assume it would be your_struct.column_1, you can use DELETE or MERGE and DELETE. I have saved the above data in a table to execute the below examples, which have the same output,
First method: DELETE
DELETE FROM `project.dataset.table`
WHERE info.city = "Sydney"
Second method: MERGE and DELETE
MERGE `project.dataset.table` a
USING (SELECT * from `project.dataset.table` WHERE info.city ="London") b
ON a.info.city =b.info.city
WHEN matched and b.id=1 then
Delete
And the output for both queries,
Row id info.name info.age info.city
1 1 Alex 30 NYC
2 1 Robert 25 Paris
3 1 Ralph 45 London
4 1 Mary 28 London
As you can see the row where info.city = "Sydney" was deleted in both cases.
It is important to point out that your data is excluded from your source table. Therefore, you should be careful.
Note: Since you want to run this process everyday, you could use Schedule Query within BigQuery Console, appending or overwriting the results after each run. Also, it is a good practice not deleting data from your source table. Thus, consider creating a new table from your source table without the rows you do not desire.
Im running a script which would fire a select query and insert the results into a table.
The select query is
select distinct a.child child_id, a.parent parent_id from cat a, par b WHERE a.child=b.catentid and b.catenttype_id='Product' and a.reltype_id='PRODUCT_ITEM'
and inserted into the table which is created as
create table TI_CAT_0 ( child_id NUMBER not null,parent_id NUMBER not null,PRIMARY KEY (child_id))
But I get a unique key constraint violation while running the script as "SYS_C00187123", and I checked this constraint name in all_constraints table and its on the TI_CAT_0 table only.
Since I use the distinct command, I'm not sure why this violation is turning up. Its a Oracle DB.
Assuming you are creating the TI_CAT_0 table from scratch and inserting records from your SELECT query, then you are either unintentionally inserting the same record more than once, or your initial query is returning multiple rows for each child_id. If this is the case, you should run this query to see if your initial query is returning duplicate child_id values. Your query, as it is written, will return unique combinations of child_id and parent_id. You can check to see if multiple parents are associated with a single child with the following SQL:
select
a.child,
count(a.parent) as parent_count
from
cat a
join par b
on a.child = b.catentid
where
b.catenttype_id='Product'
and a.reltype_id='PRODUCT_ITEM'
group by
a.child
having
count(a.parent) > 1
order by 2 desc
The results (if any) will be all child_id values associated with multiple parent_id values.
I was surprised by the outcome of these two queries. I was expecting same from both. I have two tables that share a common field but there is not a relationship set up. The table (A) has a field EventID varchar(10) and table (B) has a field XXNumber varchar(15).
Values from table B column XXNumber are referenced in table A column EventID. Even though XXNumber can hold 15 chars, none of the 179K rows of data is longer than 10 chars.
So the requirement was:
"To avoid Duplicate table B and table A entries, if the XXNumber is contained in a table A >“Event ID” number, then it should not be counted."
To see how many common records I have I ran this query first - call it query alpha"
SELECT dbo.TableB.XXNumber FROM dbo.TableB WHERE dbo.TableB.XXNumber in
( select distinct dbo.TableA.EventId FROM dbo.TableA )
The result was 5322 rows.
The following query - call it query delta which looks like this:
SELECT DISTINCT dbo.TableB.XXNumber, dbo.TableB.EventId
FROM dbo.TableB INNER JOIN dbo.TableA ON dbo.TableB.XXNumber= dbo.TableB.EventId
haas returned 4308 rows.
Shouldn't the resulting number of rows be the same?
The WHERE ID IN () version will select all rows that match each distinct value in the list (regardless of whether you code DISTINCT indide the inner select or not - that's irrelevant). If a given value appears in the parent table more than once, you'll get multipke rows selected from the parent table for that single value found in the child table.
The INNER JOIN version will select each row from the parent table once for every successful join, so if there are 3 rows in the child table with the value, and 2 in the parent, then there will be 6 rows rows in the result for that value.
To make them "the same", add 'DISTINCT' to your main select.
To explain what you're seeing, we'd need to know more about your actual data.
2 records in above image are from Db, in above table Constraint are (SID and LINE_ITEM_ID),
SID and LINE_ITEM_ID both column are used to find a unique record.
My issues :
I am looking for a query it should fetch the recored from DB depending on conditions
if i search for PART_NUMBER = 'PAU43-IMB-P6'
1. it should fetch one record from DB if search for PART_NUMBER = 'PAU43-IMB-P6', no mater to which SID that item belong to if there is only one recored either under SID =1 or SID = 2.
2. it should fetch one record which is under SID = 2 only, from DB on search for PART_NUMBER = 'PAU43-IMB-P6', if there are 2 items one in SID=1 and other in SID=2.
i am looking for a query which will search for a given part_number depending on Both SID 1 and 2, and it should return value under SID =2 and it can return value under SID=1 only if the there are no records under SID=2 (query has to withstand a load of Million record search).
Thank you
Select *
from Table
where SID||LINE_ITEM_ID = (
select Max(SID)||Max(LINE_ITEM_ID)
from table
where PART_NUMBER = 'PAU43-IMB-P6'
);
If I understand correctly, for each considered LINE_ITEM_ID you want to return only the one with the largest value for SID. This is a common requirement and, as with most things in SQL, can be written in many different ways; the best performing will depend on many factors, not least of which is the SQL product you are using.
Here's one possible approach:
SELECT DISTINCT * -- use a column list
FROM YourTable AS T1
INNER JOIN (
SELECT T2.LINE_ITEM_ID,
MAX(T2.SID) AS max_SID
FROM YourTable AS T2
GROUP
BY T2.LINE_ITEM_ID
) AS DT1 (LINE_ITEM_ID, max_SID)
ON T1.LINE_ITEM_ID = DT1.LINE_ITEM_ID
AND T1.SID = DT1.max_SID;
That said, I don't recall seeing one that relies on the UNION relational operator. You could easily rewrite the above using the INTERSECT relational operator but it would be more verbose.
Well in my case it worked something like this:
select LINE_ITEM_ID,SID,price_1,part_number from (
(select LINE_ITEM_ID,SID,price_1,part_number from Table where SID = 2)
UNION
(select LINE_ITEM_ID,SID,price_1,part_number from Table SID = 1 and line_item_id NOT IN (select LINE_ITEM_ID,SID,price_1,part_number from Table SID = 2)))
This query solved my issue..........
Take this table:
id name sub_id
---------------------------
1 A (null)
2 B (null)
3 A2 1
4 A3 1
The sub_id column is a relation to his own table, to column ID.
subid --- 0:1 --- id
Now I have the problem to make a correctly SELECT query to show that the child rows (which sub_id is not null) directly selected under his parent row. So this must be a correctly order:
1 A (null)
3 A2 1
4 A3 1
2 B (null)
A normal SELECT order the id. But how or which keyword help me to order this correctly?
JOIN isn't possible I think because I want to get all the rows separated. Because the rows will be displayed on a Gridview (ASP.Net) with EntityDataSource but the child rows must be displayed directly under his parent.
Thank you.
Look at Managing Hierarchical Data in MySQL.
Since recursion is an expensive operation because basicly you're firing multiple queries to your database you could consider using the Nested Set Model. In short you're assigning numbers to ranges in your table. It's a long article but it worth reading it. I've used it during my internship as a solution not to have 1000+ queries, But bring it down to 1 query.
Your handling 'overhead' now lies at the point of updating the table by adding, updating or deleting records. Since you then have to update all the records with a bigger 'right-value'. But when you're retrieving the data, it all goes with 1 query :)
select * from table1 order by name, sub_id will in this case return your desired result but only because the parents names and the child name are similar. If you're using SQL 2005 a recursive CTE will work:
WITH recurse (id, Name, childID, Depth)
AS
(
SELECT id, Name, ISNULL(childID, id) as id, 0 AS Depth
FROM table1 where childid is null
UNION ALL
SELECT table1.id, table1.Name, table1.childID, recurse.Depth + 1 AS Depth FROM table1
JOIN recurse ON table1.childid = recurse.id
)
SELECT * FROM recurse order by childid, depth
SELECT
*
FROM
table
ORDER BY
COALESCE(id,sub_id), id
btw, this will work only for one level.. any thing more than that requires recursive/cte function