left join
(
SELECT my_number, MAX(id) as id
FROM table1
GROUP BY location
) newNum
on newNum.Part = c.OtherPart
left join table2 t2 on t2.id = newNum.id and t2.site = a.site
Situation: I have the data fields (among others) my_number, location, and id in table1. In table2 I have the data fields (among others) id, site, date. I am joining those to other views/tables (c and a) that have some of the same data fields and my_numbers.
My goal: Each my_number has multiple id's and I want the greatest id value for each site. That is why I used group by site.
Then I need to get the 'date' of the my_number based on the id, because the second table does not contain the my_number, just its associated id.
There are a total of 3 sites, so I need the 3 greatest id value for each site. Then I want to get the 'date' of those 3 id values
Output table ex:
a.num a.site a.date c.OtherPart T2.date
15 TN 1.1.16 17 3.19.16
15 FL 2.21.16 17 4.22.16
15 TX 1.7.15 17 3.21.16
When you put something like max(column) in a SQL query, the max function is operating on a set of values of column from a group. If you've defined your query with a group by, such that the results are grouped, then every column (other than the one on which you are grouping) has multiple values.
In your case, location has one value (it's what you're grouping by), but my_number and id have multiple values. If my_number is (1,2,3,4) and id is (5,6,7,8), you can display sum(my_number) or max(my_number) but obviously you can't display on a single row the 'number' my_number. It is not a number, but a list.
This is what is meant when the error message says "SQL: is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause" If you put the column my_column in an aggregate function (like sum) it will work, or if you add it to the group by clause it will work.
Not sure what exactly you want to do about your sql, you should only fetch columns which appears in GROUP BY or the other column in an aggregate function, anyway try this please;)
left join
(
SELECT my_number, id
FROM table1 T1,
(SELECT location, MAX(id) as id
FROM table1
GROUP BY location) TMP
WHERE T1.id= TMP.id AND T1.location = TMP.location
) newNum
on newNum.Part = c.OtherPart
left join table2 t2 on t2.id = newNum.id and t2.site = a.site
And you also can fix this error by following sql but may not what you want to do,
left join
(
SELECT location, MAX(id) as id
FROM table1
GROUP BY location
) newNum
on newNum.Part = c.OtherPart
left join table2 t2 on t2.id = newNum.id and t2.site = a.site
Related
Sql help needed.
Totalcount= Employees + Count
The column names are like that. These are two random tables we are trying to join.
Imp: It is possible that - what exists in Table1 may not exist in Table2. Also what exists in table2 may not exist in Table1. So if exists in both then sum total needed, If not individual value
One method uses a full join:
select coalesce(t1.company, t2.entity) as company,
coalesce(t1.employees, 0) + coalesce(t2.count, 0) as totalcount
from table1 t1 full join
table2 t2
on t1.company = t2.entity
You can use union all and aggregation:
select entity, sum(cnt) total_count
from (
select entity, cnt from table2
union all select company, employees from table1
) t
group by entity
order by entity
For this to work properly , you need the columns in both tables to have the same datatype, ie table2.entity should have the same datatype as table1.company' (as well as table2.cnt and table1.employees). If the datatypes do not match, you must explictly cast the columns to adujst.
I am using SQL Server 2012 I have two tables like the following
Table1 and Table 2 both have many groups, indicated by the group column. The name of the group may match in both tables, but it may not. What is important is finding the group on Table 2 that has the most members that match members in a group on Table1.
I first tried doing this with a vlookup, but the problem is vlookup pulls the first entry in the Group column that has a match, not the group with the most matches. Below vlookup would pull BBB, but the correct result is CCC.
Ties may occur. There might be more than one group on Table2 that match Table1 with the same number of members thus the best thing may be to count the number of matches, but there are thousands of groups so it's not ideal to sort and sift through a column with counts. I need something like a case statement where if there is a MAX(match) then Table1 would show the group name with MAX(Match) in the derived column BestMatch. It'd be most ideal if the column could display all the groups on table 2 that have MAX(Match which may be one or more. Perhaps it could be comma separated.
If not if the column could just say tie and I could look for the tie, it'd be ideal if this is the best option, when the word tie appears it repeats besides every member that matches so I will know to look for groups that matching which accounts and how many that matched.
We really could do with some expected output to help clarify the question.
If I understand you correctly however, this query will get you close to the results you require:
;with cte as
( SELECT t1a.[group] AS Group1
, t2a.[Group] AS Group2
, RANK() OVER(PARTITION BY t1a.[group]
ORDER BY COUNT(t2a.[Group]) DESC) AS MatchRank
FROM Table1 t1a
JOIN Table2 t2a
ON t1a.member = t2a.member
GROUP BY t1a.[group], t2a.[GRoup])
SELECT *
FROM cte
WHERE MatchRank=1
The query doesn't identify ties, but it will display any tied results...
If you are a newbie to common table expressions(the ;with statement) there is a useful description here.
select *
from Table1 t1
outer apply
(
select top 1 t2.[Group]
from Table2 t2
where t2.Member = t1.Member
group by t2.[Group]
order by count(*) desc
) m
It may not be the most elegant solution but I think it could do the work:
select *
from
(select t1.[group] as t1group, t1.member, t2.[group] as t2group
from Table1 t1 inner join Table2 t2 on t1.member = t2.member)a
where member = (select max(t1.member)
from Table1 t1 inner join Table2 t2 on t1.member = t2.member)
In case of 2 rows from Table2 matching the maximum members in Table1, both results would be displayed
PS: an example of your desired results would have been helpful
Count member matches per group pair and rank them so the group pairs with the highest match count get rank #1. Once you found these, you can select the related records from table1 and table2.
select t1.grp, t1.member, t2.grp
from t1
join
(
select
t1.grp as grp1,
t2.grp as grp2,
rank() over (order by count(*) desc) as rnk
from t1
join t2 on t2.member = t1.member
group by t1.grp, t2.grp
) grps on grps.rnk = 1 and grps.grp1 = t1.grp
left join t2 on t2.grp = grps.grp2 and t2.member = t1.member
order by t1.grp, t1.member, t2.grp;
This gives you ties in separate rows, e.g. for AAA having four different members (123,456,789,555) with two matches both in CCC and DDD:
grp1 member grp2
AAA 123 CCC
AAA 123 DDD
AAA 456 CCC
AAA 789
AAA 555 DDD
If you want one row per grp1 and member with all matching grp2 in a string then you need some clumsy STUFF trick in SQL Server as far as I am aware. Look up "GROUP_CONCAT in SQL Server" to find the technique needed.
I can't to understand firebird group logic
Query:
SELECT t.id FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id
works perfectly
But when I try to get other fields:
SELECT * FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id
I get error: Invalid expression in the select list (not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause)
When you use GROUP BY in your query, the field or fields specified are used as 'keys', and data rows are grouped based on unique combinations of those 2 fields. In the result set, every such unique combination has one and only one row.
In your case, the only identifier in the group is t.id. Now consider that you have 2 records in the table, both with t.id = 1, but having different values for another column, say, t.name. If you try to select both id and name columns, it directly contradicts the constraint that one group can have only one row. That is why you cannot select any field apart from the group key.
For aggregate functions it is different. That is because, when you sum or count values or get the maximum, you are basically performing that operation only based on the id field, effectively ignoring the data in the other columns. So, there is no issue because there can only be one answer to, say, count of all names with a particular id.
In conclusion, if you want to show a column in the results, you need to group by it. This will however, make the grouping more granular, which may not be desirable. In that case, you can do something like this:
select * from T1 t
where t.id in
(SELECT t.id FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id)
When you using GROUP BY clause in SELECT you should use only aggreagted functions or columns that listed in GROUP BY clause. More about GROUP BY clause:http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/nullguide-aggrfunc.html
As example:
SELECT Max(t.jid), t.id FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id
SELECT * FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id
This will not execute,cause you have used t.id in group by, So all your columns in select clause should be using aggregate function , else those should be included in group by clause.
Select * means you are selecting all columns, so all columns except t.id are neither in group by nor in aggregate function.
Try this link, How to use GROUP BY in firebird
I have the following tables in Oracle 10g:
Table1
Name Status
a closed
b live
c live
Table2
Name Status
a final
b live
c live
There are no primary keys in both tables, and I am trying to write a query which will return identical rows without looping both tables and comparing rows/columns. If the status column is different then the row in the Table2 takes presedence.
So in the above example my query should return this:
Name Status
a final
b live
c live
Since you have mentioned that there are no Primary Key on both tables, I'm assuming that there maybe a possibility that a row may exist on Table1, Table2, or both. The query below uses Common Table Expression and Windowing function to get such result.
WITH unionTable
AS
(
SELECT Name, Status, 1 AS ordr FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Name, Status, 2 AS ordr FROM Table2
),
ranks
AS
(
SELECT Name, Status,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY NAME ORDER BY ordr DESC) rn
FROM unionTable
)
SELECT Name, Status
FROM ranks
WHERE rn = 1
SQLFiddle Demo
Something like this?
SELECT table1.Name, table2.Status
FROM table1
INNER JOIN table2 ON table1.Name = table2.Name
By always returning table2.Status you've covered both the case when they're the same and when they're different (essentially it doesn't matter what the value of table1.Status is).
I have no idea if that title conveys what I want it to.
I have two tables containing phone records (one for each account) and I'd like to get call counts for the numbers that are common to each account. In other words:
Table 1
Number ...
8675309
8675309
8675310
8675310
8675312
Table 2
Number ...
8675309
8675309
8675309
8675310
8675311
Querying with something like:
SELECT DISTINCT table1.number, COUNT(table1.number), COUNT(table2.number) FROM table1, table2 WHERE table1.number = table2.number GROUP BY table1.number
would hopefully produce:
8675309|2|3
8675310|2|1
Instead, it currently produces something like:
8675309|6|6
8675310|2|2
It appears to be multiplying the count from each table. Presumably, this is because I'm not joining the tables the way I should for this goal. Or because by the time I ask for COUNT(table1.number) the tables have already been joined in some multiplicative way. Should I not be doing a JOIN and instead something that would read like: "where table2.number CONTAINS(table1.number)"?
Any tips?
One way is with subqueries:
SELECT t1.number, t1.table1Count, t2.table2Count
from (select number, count(*) table1Count
from table1
group by number) t1
inner join (select number, count(*) table2Count
from table2
group by number) t2
on t2.number = t1.number
This assumes that you only want to list numbers that appear in both tables. If you want to list all numbers that appear in one table and optionally the other, you'd use a left or right outer join; if you wanted all numbers that appeared in either or both tables, you'd use a full outer join.
Another and potentially more efficient way requires the presence of a single column that uniquely identifies each row in each table:
SELECT
t1.number
,count(distinct t1.PrimaryKeyValue) table1Count
,count(distinct t2.PrimaryKeyValue) table2Count
from table1 t1
inner join table2 t2
on t2.number = t1.number
group by t1.number
This makes the same assumptions as before, and can also be adjusted modified via outer joins.
One way is to use a couple of derived tables to compute your counts separately and then join them to produce your final summary:
select t1.number, t1.count1, t2.count2
from (select number, count(number) as count1 from table1 group by number) as t1
join (select number, count(number) as count2 from table2 group by number) as t2
on t1.number = t2.number
There are probably other ways but that should work and it is the first thing that came to mind.
You're getting your "multiplicative" effect pretty much for the reasons you suspect. If you have this:
table1(id,x) table2(id,x)
------------ ------------
1, a 4, a
2, a 5, a
3, b 6, b
Then joining them on x will give you this:
1,a, 4,a
1,a, 5,a
2,a, 4,a
2,a, 5,a
...
Usually you could use a GROUP BY to sort out the duplicates but you can't do that because it would mess up your per-table counts.
Try this:
select tab1.number,tab1.num1,tab2.num2
from
(SELECT number, COUNT(number) as num1 from table1 group by number) as tab1
left join
(SELECT number, COUNT(number) as num2 from table2 group by number) as tab2
on tab1.number = tab2.number