We're querying one of data sets for unique IDs
SELECT count(distinct id) FROM [MyTable] LIMIT 1
Another query ran a similar command
SELECT count(*) From ( select id FROM MyTable group by id) A ;
The first command is more efficient, but the output should be identical. However, they are getting different results. The first query returns more results by about 1.5% of the dataset, of over 100 million rows.
COUNT(DISTINCT field) is just an estimate. If you need exact results you can use EXACT_COUNT_DISTINCT(field).
This is explained in the query reference: https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/query-reference?hl=en#countdistinct
Check COUNT([DISTINCT] field [, n]) definition
It is a statistical approximation and is not guaranteed to be exact.
The second query returns exact count, thus the difference
Related
The following statement works in my database:
select column_a, count(*) from my_schema.my_table group by 1;
but this one doesn't:
select column_a, count(*) from my_schema.my_table;
I get the error:
ERROR: column "my_table.column_a" must appear in the GROUP BY clause
or be used in an aggregate function
Helpful note: This thread: What does SQL clause "GROUP BY 1" mean? discusses the meaning of "group by 1".
Update:
The reason why I am confused is because I have often seen count(*) as follows:
select count(*) from my_schema.my_table
where there is no group by statement. Is COUNT always required to be followed by group by? Is the group by statement implicit in this case?
This error makes perfect sense. COUNT is an "aggregate" function. So you need to tell it which field to aggregate by, which is done with the GROUP BY clause.
The one which probably makes most sense in your case would be:
SELECT column_a, COUNT(*) FROM my_schema.my_table GROUP BY column_a;
If you only use the COUNT(*) clause, you are asking to return the complete number of rows, instead of aggregating by another condition. Your questing if GROUP BY is implicit in that case, could be answered with: "sort of": If you don't specify anything is a bit like asking: "group by nothing", which means you will get one huge aggregate, which is the whole table.
As an example, executing:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table;
will show you the number of rows in that table, whereas:
SELECT col_a, COUNT(*) FROM table GROUP BY col_a;
will show you the the number of rows per value of col_a. Something like:
col_a | COUNT(*)
---------+----------------
value1 | 100
value2 | 10
value3 | 123
You also should take into account that the * means to count everything. Including NULLs! If you want to count a specific condition, you should use COUNT(expression)! See the docs about aggragate functions for more details on this topic.
If you don't use the Group by clause at all then all that will be returned is a count of 1 for each row, which is already assumed anyway and therefore redundant data. By adding GROUP BY 1 you have categorized the information thereby making it non-redundant even though it returns the same result in theory as the statement that creates an error.
When you have a function like count, sum etc. you need to group the other columns. This would be equivalent to your query:
select column_a, count(*) from my_schema.my_table group by column_a;
When you use count(*) with no other column, you are counting all rows from SELECT * from the table. When you use count(*) alongside another column, you are counting the number of rows for each different value of that other column. So in this case you need to group the results, in order to show each value and its count only once.
group by 1 in this case refers to column_a which has the column position 1 in your query.
This why it works on your server. Indeed this is not a good practice in sql.
You should mention the column name because the column order may change in the table so it will be hard to maintain this code.
The best solution is:
select column_a, count(*) from my_schema.my_table group by column_a;
I would like to query a DB2 table and get all the results of a query in addition to all of the rows returned by the select statement in a separate column.
E.g., if the table contains columns 'id' and 'user_id', assuming 100 rows, the result of the query would appear in this format: (id) | (user_id) | 100.
I do not wish to use a 'group by' clause in the query. (Just in case you are confused about what i am asking) Also, I could not find an example here: http://mysite.verizon.net/Graeme_Birchall/cookbook/DB2V97CK.PDF.
Also, if there is a more efficient way of getting both these results (values + count), I would welcome any ideas. My environment uses zend framework 1.x, which does not have an ODBC adapter for DB2. (See issue http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-905.)
If I understand what you are asking for, then the answer should be
select t.*, g.tally
from mytable t,
(select count(*) as tally
from mytable
) as g;
If this is not what you want, then please give an actual example of desired output, supposing there are 3 to 5 records, so that we can see exactly what you want.
You would use window/analytic functions for this:
select t.*, count(*) over() as NumRows
from table t;
This will work for whatever kind of query you have.
I have to find distinct count of combination of 2 variables. I used the following 2 queries to find the count:
select count(*) from
( select V1, V2
from table1
group by 1,2
) a
select count(distinct catx('-', V1, V2))
from table1
Logically, both the above queries should give the same count but I am getting different counts. Note that
both V1 and V2 are integers
Both variables can have null values, though there are no null values in my table
There are no negative values
Any idea why I might be getting different outputs? And which is the best way to find the count of distinct combinations of 2 or more columns?
Thanks.
The SAS log gives the answer when you run the first sql code. Using 'group by' requires a summary function, otherwise it is ignored. The count will therefore return the overall number of rows instead of a distinct count of the 2 variables combined.
Just add count(*) to the subquery and you will get the same answer with both methods.
select count(*) from
( select V1, V2, count(*)
from table1
group by 1,2
) a
Use distinct in the subquery for the first query..
When you do a group by but don't include any aggregate function, it discards the group by.
so you will still have duplicate combinations of v1 and v2.
It seems that GROUP BY doesn't work that way in SAS. You can't use it to remove duplicates unless you have an aggregate function in your query. I found this in the log of my query output -
NOTE: A GROUP BY clause has been discarded because neither the SELECT
clause nor the optional HAVING clause of the associated
table-expression referenced a summary function.
This answers the question.
you can ignore the group by part also and just add a distinct in the sub-query. Also the second query you wrote is more efficient
I am trying to get my query to grab multiple rows while returning the maximum count of that query.
My query:
SELECT *, COUNT(*) as Max FROM tableA LIMIT 0 , 30
However, it is only outputting 1 record.
I would like to return multiple record as it was the following query:
SELECT * FROM tableA LIMIT 0 , 30
Do I have to use separate queries?
Use separate queries.
It's two separate pieces of information with different structures. One is a row set, the other is a single value. Trying to return both these pieces of information in one query, while possible, is not a good idea.
Well, you can use a single query with the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS function in it, with the use of LIMIT as well. So, while you run the first query through mysql_query(), you can then also run another query as:
mysql_query("SELECT FOUND_ROWS()");
which will return you the number of total rows found through that query (no matter you use the LIMIT or not, SELECT FOUND_ROWS() will give you the result count without the LIMIT mentioned in your query).
Following is a sample query:
SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM tbl_abc
Thanks
I have SQL SELECT query which returns a lot of rows, and I have to split it into several partitions. Ie, set max results to 10000 and iterate the rows calling the query select time with increasing first result (0, 10000, 20000). All the queries are done in same transaction, and data that my queries are fetching is not changing during the process (other data in those tables can change, though).
Is it ok to use just plain select:
select a from b where...
Or do I have to use order by with the select:
select a from b where ... order by c
In order to be sure that I will get all the rows? In other word, is it guaranteed that query without order by will always return the rows in the same order?
Adding order by to the query drops performance of the query dramatically.
I'm using Oracle, if that matters.
EDIT: Unfortunately I cannot take advantage of scrollable cursor.
Order is definitely not guaranteed without an order by clause, but whether or not your results will be deterministic (aside from the order) would depend on the where clause. For example, if you have a unique ID column and your where clause included a different filter range each time you access it, then you would have non-ordered deterministic results, i.e.:
select a from b where ID between 1 and 100
select a from b where ID between 101 and 200
select a from b where ID between 201 and 300
would all return distinct result sets, but order would not be any way guaranteed.
No, without order by it is not guaranteed that query will ALWAYS return the rows in the same order.
No guarantees unless you have an order by on the outermost query.
Bad SQL Server example, but same rules apply. Not guaranteed order even with inner query
SELECT
*
FROM
(
SELECT
*
FROM
Mytable
ORDER BY SomeCol
) foo
Use Limit
So you would do:
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 0,100
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 101,100
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 201,100
The LIMIT would be from which position you want to start and the second variable would be how many results you want to see.
Its a good pagnation trick.