I currently have a program that assigns meals to patients. A patient however can have a curtain diet. If the assigned meal isn't allowed due to the diet it automatically gets replaced by a replacement meal.
So database would be something like this:
Diet table: Diet_id, Diet_Name
Replacement table: meal_id, replacement_id, Diet_id
The thing I want to do is write a query in SQL Server to see if for every diet combination there's a replacement available.
For example:
A,B
A,C
A,B,C
A,B,X
A,B,C,X
A,B,...,X
So if diet with id 1 has no replacement for combination A,B,C I want the result to return the meal_id and diet combination that failed.
I currently have 21 different diets so that's fact(21) combinations. Too much to just iterate. Would there be an alternative to test all combinations?
some data:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3949922/diets.txt
To just get the ID's:
Select diet_id from Diet
except
Select diet_id from Replacement
Related
I'm using BigQuery.
I have two simple tables with "bad" data quality from our systems. One represents revenue and the other production rows for bus journeys.
I need to match every journey to a revenue transaction but I only have a set of fields and no key and I don't really know how to do this matching.
This is a sample of the data:
Revenue
Year, Agreement, Station_origin, Station_destination, Product
2020, 123123, London, Manchester, Qwerty
Journeys
Year, Agreement, Station_origin, Station_destination, Product
2020, 123123, Kings Cross, Piccadilly Gardens, Qwer
2020, 123123, Kings Cross, Victoria Station, Qwert
2020, 123123, London, Manchester, Qwerty
Every station has a maximum of 9 alternative names and these are stored in a "station" table.
Stations
Station Name, Station Name 2, Station Name 3,...
London, Kings Cross, Euston,...
Manchester, Piccadilly Gardens, Victoria Station,...
I would like to test matching or joining the tables first with the original fields. This will generate some matches but there are many journeys that are not matched. For the unmatched revenue rows, I would like to change the product name (shorten it to two letters and possibly get many matches from production table) and then station names by first change the station_origin and then station_destination. When using a shorter product name I could possibly get many matches but I want the row from the production table with the most common product.
Something like this:
1. Do a direct match. That is, I can use the fields as they are in the tables.
2. Do a match where the revenue.product is changed by shortening it to two letters. substr(product,0,2)
3. Change the rev.station_origin to the first alternative, Station Name 2, and then try a join. The product or other station are not changed.
4. Change the rev.station_origin to the first alternative, Station Name 2, and then try a join. The product is changed as above with a substr(product,0,2) but rev.station_destination is not changed.
5. Change the rev.station_destination to the first alternative, Station Name 2, and then try a join. The product or other station are not changed.
I was told that maybe I should create an intermediate table with all combinations of stations and products and let a rank column decide the order. The station names in the station's table are in order of importance so "station name" is more important than "station name 2" and so on.
I started to do a query with a subquery per rank and do a UNION ALL but there are so many combinations that there must be another way to do this.
Don't know if this makes any sense but I would appreciate any help or ideas to do this in a better way.
Cheers,
Cris
To implement a complex joining strategy with approximate matching, it might make more sense to define the strategy within JavaScript - and call the function from a BigQuery SQL query.
For example, the following query does the following steps:
Take the top 200 male names in the US.
Find if one of the top 200 female names matches.
If not, look for the most similar female name within the options.
Note that the logic to choose the closest option is encapsulated within the JS UDF fhoffa.x.fuzzy_extract_one(). See https://medium.com/#hoffa/new-in-bigquery-persistent-udfs-c9ea4100fd83 to learn more about this.
WITH data AS (
SELECT name, gender, SUM(number) c
FROM `bigquery-public-data.usa_names.usa_1910_2013`
GROUP BY 1,2
), top_men AS (
SELECT * FROM data WHERE gender='M'
ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 200
), top_women AS (
SELECT * FROM data WHERE gender='F'
ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 200
)
SELECT name male_name,
COALESCE(
(SELECT name FROM top_women WHERE name=a.name)
, fhoffa.x.fuzzy_extract_one(name, ARRAY(SELECT name FROM top_women))
) female_version
FROM top_men a
I have a table of invoice data with over 100k unique invoices and several thousand unique company names associated with them.
I'm trying to group these company names into more general groups to understand how many invoices they're responsible for, how often they receive them, etc.
Currently, I'm using the following code to identify unique company names:
SELECT DISTINCT(company_name)
FROM invoice_data
ORDER BY company_name
The problem is that this only gives me exact matches, when its obvious that there are many string values in company_name that are similar. For example: McDonalds Paddington, McDonlads Oxford Square, McDonalds Peckham, etc.
How can I make by GROUP BY statement more general?
Sometimes the issue isn't as simple as the example listed above, occasionally there is simply an extra space or PTY/LTD which throws off a GROUP BY match.
EDIT
To give an example of what I'm looking for, I'd be looking to turn the following:
company_name
----------------------
Jim's Pizza Paddington|
Jim's Pizza Oxford |
McDonald's Peckham |
McDonald's Victoria |
-----------------------
And be able to group by their company name rather than exclusively with an exact string match.
Have you tried using the Soundex function?
SELECT
SOUNDEX(name) AS code,
MAX( name) AS sample_name,
count(name) as records
FROM ((
SELECT
"Jim's Pizza Paddington" AS name)
UNION ALL (
SELECT
"Jim's Pizza Oxford" AS name)
UNION ALL (
SELECT
"McDonald's Peckham" AS name)
UNION ALL (
SELECT
"McDonald's Victoria" AS name))
GROUP BY
1
ORDER BY
You can then use the soundex to create groupings, with a split or other type of function to pull the part of the string which matches the name group or use a windows function to pull back one occurrence to get the name string. Not perfect but means you do not need to pull into other tools with advanced language recognition.
I have an unusual question that seems simple but has me stumped in a SQL Server stored procedure.
I have 2 tables as described below.
tblMaster
ID, CommitDate, SubUser, OrigFileName
Sample data
ID CommitDate SubUser OrigFileName
----------------------------------------
1 2014-10-07 Test1 Test1.pdf
2 2014-10-08 Test2 Test2.pdf
3 2014-10-09 Test3 Test3.pdf
The above table is basically the header table that tracks the committed files. In addition to this, we have a details table with the following structure.
tblIndex
ID, FileID (Linking column to the header row described above), Word
Sample data:
1. 1, 1, Oil
2. 2, 1, oil
3. 3, 2, oil
4. 4, 2, tank
5. 5, 3, tank
The above rows represent the words that we want to search on and if a certain criteria matches return the corresponding filename/header row ID. What I would love to figure out to do is if I do a search for
One word (i.e. "oil"), then the system should respond with all the files that meet the criteria (easiest case and figured out)
If more than one word is searched for (i.e. "oil" and "tank"), then we should only see the second file since it is the only one that has both oil and tank as its key words.
Tried using a LIKE "%oil%" AND LIKE "%tank%" and that resulted in no rows being created since one value can't be both oil and tank.
Tried doing a LIKE "%oil%" OR LIKE "%tank%" but I get files 1, 2, and 3 since the OR is inclusive of all the other rows.
One last thing, I recognize I could just do a search for the first term and then save the results into a temp table and then search for the second term in that second table and I will get what I am looking for. The problem with that is that I don't exactly know how many items will be searched for. I don't want to have to create a structure where I am constantly having to store data into another temp table if someone does a search for 6 "keywords".
Any help/ideas will be much appreciated.
try this ! slightly differing from the previous answer
SELECT distinct FileID,COUNT(distinct t.word) FROM tblIndex t
WHERE t.Word LIKE '%oil%' OR t.Word LIKE '%tank%'
GROUP BY FileID
HAVING COUNT(distinct t.word) > 1
One simple option would be to do something like this :
SELECT FileID
FROM tblIndex t
WHERE t.Word LIKE '%oil%' OR t.Word LIKE '%tank%'
GROUP BY FileID
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
This assume you do not have duplicate in your tblIndex.
I'm also unsure whether you really need the like or not. According to your sample data you don't, a basic comparison would be way more efficient and would avoid possible collisions.
I have a question about updating multiple rows with different values in MS Access 2010.
Table 1: Food
ID | Favourite Food
1 | Apple
2 | Orange
3 | Pear
Table 2: New
ID | Favourite Food
1 | Watermelon
3 | Cherries
Right now, it looks deceptively simple to execute them separately (because this is just an example). But how would I execute a whole lot of them at the same time if I had, say, 500 rows to update out of 1000 records.
So what I want to do is to update the "Food" table based on the new values from the "New" table.
Would appreciate if anyone could give me some direction / syntax so that I can test it out on MS Access 2010. If this requires VBA, do provide some samples of how I should carry this out programmatically, not manually statement-by-statement.
Thank you!
ADDENDUM (REAL DATA)
Table: Competitors
Columns: CompetitorNo (PK), FirstName, LastName, Score, Ranking
query: FinalScore
Columns: CompetitorNo, Score, Ranking
Note - this query is a query of another query, which in turn, is a query of another query (could there be a potential problem here? There are at least 4 queries before this FinalScore query is derived. Should I post them?)
In the competitors table, all the columns except "Score" and "Ranking" are filled. We would need to take the values from the FinalScore query and insert them into the relevant competitor columns.
Addendum (Brief Explanation of Query)
Table: Competitors
Columns: CompetitorNo (PK), FirstName, LastName, Score, Ranking
Sample Data: AX1234, Simpson, Danny, <blank initially>, <blank initially>
Table: CompetitionRecord
Columns: EventNo (PK composite), CompetitorNo (PK composite), Timing, Bonus
Sample Data1: E01, AX1234, 14.4, 1
Sample Data2: E01, AB1938, 12.5, 0
Sample Data3: E01, BB1919, 13.0, 2
Event No specifies unique event ID
Timing measures the time taken to run 200 metres. The lesser, the better.
Bonus can be given in 3 values (0 - Disqualified, 1 - Normal, 2 - Exceptional). Competitors with Exceptional are given bonus points (5% off their timing).
Query: FinalScore
Columns: CompetitorNo (PK), Score, Ranking
Score is calculated by wins. For example, in the above event (E01), there are three competitors. The winner of the event is BB1919. Winners get 1 point. Losers don't get any points. Those that are disqualified do not receive any points as well.
This query lists the competitors and their cumulative scores (from a list of many events - E01, E02, E03 etc.) and calculates their ranking in the ranking column everytime the query is executed. (For example, a person who wins the most 200m events would be at the top of this list).
Now, I am required to update the Competitors table with this information. The query is rather complex - with all the grouping, summations, rankings and whatnots. Thus, I had to create multiple queries to achieve the end result.
How about:
UPDATE Food
INNER JOIN [New]
ON Food.ID=New.ID
SET Food.[Favourite Food] = New.[Favourite Food]
I am not sure how to phrase this question so I'll give an example:
Suppose there is a table called tagged that has two columns: tagger and taggee. What would the SQL query look like to return the taggee(s) that are in multiple rows? That is to say, they have been tagged 2 or more times by any tagger.
I would like a 'generic' SQL query and not something that only works on a specific DBMS.
EDIT: Added "tagged 2 or more times by any tagger."
HAVING can operate on the result of aggregate functions. So if you have data like this:
Row tagger | taggee
--------+----------
1. Joe | Cat
2. Fred | Cat
3. Denise | Dog
4. Joe | Horse
5. Denise | Horse
It sounds like you want Cat, Horse.
To get the taggee's that are in multiple rows, you would execute:
SELECT taggee, count(*) FROM tagged GROUP BY taggee HAVING count(*) > 1
That being said, when you say "select only rows with multiple hits for a specific column", which row do you want? Do you want row 1 for Cat, or row 2?
select distinct t1.taggee from tagged t1 inner join tagged t2
on t1.taggee = t2.taggee and t1.tagger != t2.tagger;
Will give you all the taggees who have been tagged by more than one tagger