I have a SQL query
SELECT
Group_Id, MIN(Rec_Number) as RecStart, MAX(Rec_Number) AS RecEnd
FROM
Rec
WHERE
Group_Id != ''
GROUP BY
Group_Id
ORDER BY
Group_Id
This produces the following kind of results.
92-2274 9222740001 9222740004
92-2275 9222750001 9222750026
etc...
However if record 3 is missing (in the first row for instance) the query obviously doesn't account for it. What I am trying to do is the following
92-2274 9222740001 9222740002
92-2274 9222740004 9222740018
92-2275 9222750001 9222750016
92-2275 9222750018 9222750026
etc...
So essentially each time the script sees a record missing inside the group it starts a new line whilst staying inside the group before iterating on the next group. The group_Id is of course the first 6 digits of the rec_Number
I would also like to do this as well
92-2274 0001 0002
92-2274 0003 0004
Or even trim it to and remove the leading 0's as well if possible I know about using Right (Rec_Number, 4) however as this is a float the automatic convert to string seems to be messing something up as I get +009 is many columns so I assume I need to cast first or something. This particular function I could do it Excel after the fact I guess but I'm sure SQL could do it if the guy writing the query was a DBA and not a bumbling server admin (that's me!)
So is there a way of doing that in SQL also I must warn you that the standard CTE or using functions such as row number don't work as this is SQL Server 2000 - yes it is that old!
Hence me struggling to find posts on Stack Overflow that apply. Many of them start with the WITH keyword which means I can't use any of those to start with!
I think I am needing an IF ELse kind of block but I am not sure what kind of method I can use to get the query to create a new row each time it hits a missing concurrent number in the group range.
The final output will show me the ranges of records in each group whilst highlighting the missing ones via a new line each time.
For the second part, this should work :
RIGHT ( CAST ( MIN (Rec_Number) as Decimal(10)), 4)
It will only keep the last 4 characters of your number.
Related
Here I have this query that finds out the drop percentage of a bunch of clients based on the orders they have received(i.e. It finds the percentage difference in orders by comparing the current month with the previous month). What I want to achieve here is to have a field where I can see the clients who had 4 months continuous drop, 3 months drop, 2 months drop, and 1 month drop.
I know, it can only be achieved by comparing the last 4 months using the lag function or sub queries. can you guys pls help me out on this one, would appreciate it very much
select
fd.customers2, fd.Month1, fd.year1, fd.variance, case when
(fd.variance < -0.00001 and fd.year1 = '2022.0' and fd.Month1 = '1')
then '1month drop' else fd.customers2 end as 1_most_host_drop
from
(SELECT
c.*,
sa.customers as customers2,
sum(sa.order) as orders,
date_part(mon, sa.date) as Month1,
date_part(year, sa.date) as year1,
(cast(orders - LAG(orders) OVER(Partition by customers2 ORDER BY
year1, Month1) as NUMERIC(10,2))/NULLIF(LAG(orders)
OVER(partition by customers2 ORDER BY year1, Month1) * 1, 0)) AS variance
FROM stats sa join (select distinct
d.id, d.customers
from configer d
) c on sa.customers=c.customers
WHERE sa.date >= '2021-04-1'
GROUP BY Month1, sa.customers, c.id, year1,
c.customers)fd
In a spirit of friendliness: I think you are a little premature in posting this here as there are several issues with the syntax before even reaching the point where you can solve the problem:
You have at least two places with a comma immediately preceding the word FROM:
...AS variance, FROM stats_archive sa ...
...d.customers, FROM config d...
Recommend you don't use VARIANCE as an alias (it is a system function in PostgreSQL and so is likely also a system function name in Redshift)
Not super important, but there's no need for c.* - just select the columns you will use
DATE_PART requires a string as the first parameter DATE_PART('mon',current_date)
I might be wrong about this, but I suspect you cannot use column aliases in the partition by or order by of a window function. Put the originating expressions there instead:
... OVER (PARTITION BY customers2 ORDER BY DATE_PART('year',sa.date),DATE_PART('mon',sa.date))
LAG has three parameters. (1) The column you want to retrieve the value from, (2) the row offset, where a positive integer indicates how many rows prior to the current row you should retrieve a value from according to the partition and order context and (3) the value the function should return as a default (in case of the first row in the partition). As such, you don't need NULLIF. So, to get the row immediately prior to the current row, or return 0 in case the current row is the first row in the partition:
LAG(orders,1,0) OVER (PARTITION BY customers2 ORDER BY DATE_PART('year',sa.date),DATE_PART('mon',sa.date))
If you use 0 as a default in the calculation of what is currently aliased variance, you will almost certainly run into a div/0 error either now, or worse, when you least expect it in the future. You should protect against that with some CASE logic or better, provide a more appropriate default value or even better, calculate the LAG with the default 0, then filter out the 0 rows before doing the calculation.
You can't use column aliases in the GROUP BY. You must reference each field that is not participating in an aggregate in the group by, whether through direct mention (sa.date) or indirectly in an expression (DATE_PART('mon',sa.date))
Your date should be '2021-04-01'
All in all, without sample data, expected results using the posted sample data and without first removing syntax errors, it is a tall order to attempt to offer advice on the problem which is any more specific than:
Build the source of the calculation as a completely separate query first. Calculate the LAG in that source query. Only when you've run that source query and verified that the LAG is producing the correct result should you then wrap it as a sub-query or CTE (not sure if Redshift supports these, but presumably) at which point you can filter out the rows with a zero as the denominator (the first month of orders for each customer).
Good luck!
So I am honestly a little puzzled by this!
I have a query that returns a set of transactions that contain both repair costs and an odometer reading at the time of repair on the master level. To get an accurate Cost per mile reading I need to do a subquery to get both the first meter reading between a starting date and an end date, and an ending meter.
(select top 1 wf2.ro_num
from wotrans wotr2
left join wofile wf2
on wotr2.rop_ro_num = wf2.ro_num
and wotr2.rop_fac = wf2.ro_fac
where wotr.rop_veh_num = wotr2.rop_veh_num
and wotr.rop_veh_facility = wotr2.rop_veh_facility
AND ((#sdate = '01/01/1900 00:00:00' and wotr2.rop_tran_date = 0)
OR ([dbo].[udf_RTA_ConvertDateInt](#sdate) <= wotr2.rop_tran_date
AND [dbo].[udf_RTA_ConvertDateInt](#edate) >= wotr2.rop_tran_date))
order by wotr2.rop_tran_date asc) as highMeter
The reason I have the tables aliased as xx2 is because those tables are also used in the main query, and I don't want these to interact with each other except to pull the correct vehicle number and facility.
Basically when I run the main query it returns a value that is not correct; it returns the one that is second(keep in mind that the first and second have the same date.) But when I take the subquery and just copy and paste it into it's own query and run it, it returns the correct value.
I do have a work around for this, but I am just curious as to why this happening. I have searched quite a bit and found not much(other than the fact that people don't like order bys in subqueries). Talking to one of my friends that also does quite a bit of SQL scripting, it looks to us as if the subquery is ordering differently than the subquery by itsself when you have multiple values that are the same for the order by(i.e. 10 dates of 08/05/2016).
Any ideas would be helpful!
Like I said I have a work around that works in this one case, but don't know yet if it will work on a larger dataset.
Let me know if you want more code.
folks
I'm a tester who is new to SQL. I'm testing an application where every time I use it I have to enter a value. For good testing, I can only use every value once, and I have to use a limited range of values. But my coworkers and I randomly used these values before.
So, let's say I've got 1834, 1835, 1836... down to 2000. 1850...1900 is taken. But, 1850...1900 has each created a row in the ATTR table under the ID_TX column.
I know enough to FIND * FROM ATTR WHERE ID_TX BETWEEN 1834 AND 2000;
This returns all used values, which means I still have to change the list to remove those values.
I've tried WHERE NOT EXIST, but that either shows me every ID_TX that isn't in that list, or doesn't show me anything.
My question is, is there any way to query either using BETWEEN or using a IN list to return all numbers that aren't existing in the database from a list not stored in the database? If there is no simple way with queries in a worksheet, is this something I can do with PLSQL?
You can use a hierarchical query to generate the numbers and then use MINUS to remove the existing numbers:
SELECT LEVEL + 1833
FROM DUAL
CONNECT BY LEVEL <= (2000 - 1833)
MINUS
SELECT ID_TX
FROM ATTR
WHERE ID_TX BETWEEN 1834 AND 2000;
I'd like to consult one thing. I have table in DB. It has 2 columns and looks like this:
Name...bilance
Jane...+3
Jane...-5
Jane...0
Jane...-8
Jane...-2
Paul...-1
Paul...2
Paul....9
Paul...1
...
I have to walk through this table and if I find record with different "name" (than was on previous row) I process all rows with the previous "name". (If I step on the first Paul row I process all Jane rows)
The processing goes like this:
Now I work only with Jane records and walk through them one by one. On each record I stop and compare it with all previous Jane rows one by one.
The task is to sumarize "bilance" column (in the scope of actual person) if they have different signs
Summary:
I loop through this table in 3 levels paralelly (nested loops)
1st level = search for changes of "name" column
2nd level = if change was found, get all rows with previous "name" and walk through them
3rd level = on each row stop and walk through all previous rows with current "name"
Can this be solved only using CURSOR and FETCHING, or is there some smoother solution?
My real table has 30 000 rows and 1500 people and If I do the logic in PHP, it takes long minutes and than timeouts. So I would like to rewrite it to MS SQL 2000 (no other DB is allowed). Are cursors fast solution or is it better to use something else?
Thank you for your opinions.
UPDATE:
There are lots of questions about my "summarization". Problem is a little bit more difficult than I explained. I simplified it just to describe my algorithm.
Each row of my table contains much more columns. The most important is month. That's why there are more rows for each person. Each is for different month.
"Bilances" are "working overtimes" and "arrear hours" of workers. And I need to sumarize + and - bilances to neutralize them using values from previous months. I want to have as many zeroes as possible. All the table must stay as it is, just bilances must be changed to zeroes.
Example:
Row (Jane -5) will be summarized with row (Jane +3). Instead of 3 I will get 0 and instead of -5 I will get -2. Because I used this -5 to reduce +3.
Next row (Jane 0) won't be affected
Next row (Jane -8) can not be used, because all previous bilances are negative
etc.
You can sum all the values per name using a single SQL statement:
select
name,
sum(bilance) as bilance_sum
from
my_table
group by
name
order by
name
On the face of it, it sounds like this should do what you want:
select Name, sum(bilance)
from table
group by Name
order by Name
If not, you might need to elaborate on how the Names are sorted and what you mean by "summarize".
I'm not sure what you mean by this line... "The task is to sumarize "bilance" column (in the scope of actual person) if they have different signs".
But, it may be possible to use a group by query to get a lot of what you need.
select name, case when bilance < 0 then 'negative' when bilance >= 0 then 'positive', count(*)
from table
group by name, bilance
That might not be perfect syntax for the case statement, but it should get you really close.
I'm having trouble with Microsoft Access 2003, it's complaining about this statement:
select cardnr
from change
where year(date)<2009
group by cardnr
having max(time+date) = (time+date) and cardto='VIP'
What I want to do is, for every distinct cardnr in the table change, to find the row with the latest (time+date) that is before year 2009, and then just select the rows with cardto='VIP'.
This validator says it's OK, Access says it's not OK.
This is the message I get: "you tried to execute a query that does not include the specified expression 'max(time+date)=time+date and cardto='VIP' and cardnr=' as part of an aggregate function."
Could someone please explain what I'm doing wrong and the right way to do it? Thanks
Note: The field and table names are translated and do not collide with any reserved words, I have no trouble with the names.
Try to think of it like this - HAVING is applied after the aggregation is done.
Therefore it can not compare to unaggregated expressions (neither for time+date, nor for cardto).
However, to get the last (principle is the same for getting rows related to other aggregated functions as weel) time and date you can do something like:
SELECT cardnr
FROM change main
WHERE time+date IN (SELECT MAX(time+date)
FROM change sub
WHERE sub.cardnr = main.cardnr AND
year(date)<2009
AND cardto='VIP')
(assuming that date part on your time field is the same for all the records; having two fields for date/time is not in your best interest and also using reserved words for field names can backfire in certain cases)
It works because the subquery is filtered only on the records that you are interested in from the outer query.
Applying the same year(date)<200 and cardto='VIP' to the outer query can improve performance further.