Currently have a single table with large amount of data in access, due to the size I couldn't easily work with it in Excel any more.
I'm partially there on a query to pull data from this table.
7 Column table
One column GL_GL_NUM contains a transaction number. ~ 75% of these numbers are pairs. I'm trying to pull the records (all columns information) for each unique transaction number in this column.
I have put together some code from googling that hypothetically should work but I think I'm missing something on the syntax or simply asking access to do what it cannot.
See below:
SELECT SOURCE_FUND, GLType, Contract, Status, Debit, Credit, GL_GL_NUM
FROM Suspense
JOIN (
SELECT TC_TXN_NUM TXN_NUM, COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) GL_NUM
FROM Suspense
GROUP BY TC_TXN_NUM HAVING COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) > 1 ) SUB ON GL_GL_NUM = GL_NUM
Hey Beth is this the suggested code? It says there is a syntax error in the FROM clause. Thanks.
SELECT * from SuspenseGL
JOIN (
SELECT TC_TXN_NUM, COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) GL_NUM
FROM Suspense
GROUP BY TC_TXN_NUM
HAVING COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) > 1
Do you want detailed results (all rows and columns) or aggregate results, with one row per tx number?
If you want an aggregate result, like the count of distinct transaction numbers, then you need to apply one or more aggregate functions to any other columns you include.
If you run
SELECT TC_TXN_NUM, COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) GL_NUM
FROM Suspense
GROUP BY TC_TXN_NUM
HAVING COUNT(GL_GL_NUM) > 1
you'll get one row for each distinct txn, but if you then join those results back with your original table, you'll have the same number of rows as if you didn't join them with distinct txns at all.
Is there a column you don't want included in your results? If not, then the only query you need to work with is
select * from suspense
Considering your column names, what you may want is:
SELECT SOURCE_FUND, GLType, Contract, Status, sum(Debit) as sum_debit,
sum(Credit) as sum_credit, count(*) as txCount
FROM Suspense
group by
SOURCE_FUND, GLType, Contract, Status
based on your comments, if you can't work with aggregate results, you need to work with them all:
Select * from suspense
What's not working? It doesn't matter if 75% of the txns are duplicates, you need to send out every column in every row.
OK, let's say
Select * from suspense
returns 8 rows, and
select GL_GL_NUM from suspense group by GL_GL_NUM
returns 5 rows, because 3 of them have duplicate GL_GL_NUMs and 2 of them don't.
How many rows do you want in your result set? if you want less than 8 rows back, you need to perform some sort of aggregate function on each column you want returned.
You could do something like the following:
SELECT S.* FROM
SUSPENSE AS S
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT GL_GL_NUM, MIN(ID) AS ID FROM SUSPENSE
GROUP BY GL_GL_NUM) AS S2
ON S.ID = S2.ID
AND S.GL_GL_NUM = S2.GL_GL_NUM
Which would return a single row for a unique gl_gl_num. However if the other rows have different data it will not be shown. You would have to either aggregate that data up using SUM(Credit), SUM(Debit) and then GROUP BY the gl_gl_num.
I have attached a SQL Fiddle to demonstrate my results and make this clearer.
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/8284f/2
Related
I'm having trouble understanding this error through all the researching I have done. I have the following query
SELECT M.[PO Concatenate], Sum(M.SumofAward) AS TotalAward, (SELECT TOP 1 M1.[Material Group] FROM
[MGETCpreMG] AS M1 WHERE M1.[PO Concatenate]=M.[PO Concatenate] ORDER BY M1.SumofAward DESC) AS TopGroup
FROM MGETCpreMG AS M
GROUP BY M.[PO Concatenate];
For a brief instance it reviews the results I want, but then the "At most one record can be returned by this subquery" error comes and wipes all the data to #Name?
For context, [MGETCpreMG] is a query off a main table [MG ETC] that was used to consolidate Award for differing Material Groups on a PO transaction ([PO Concatenate])
SELECT [MG ETC].[PO Concatenate], Sum([MG ETC].Award) AS SumOfAward, [MG ETC].[Material Group]
FROM [MG ETC]
GROUP BY [MG ETC].[PO Concatenate], [MG ETC].[Material Group]
ORDER BY [MG ETC].[PO Concatenate];
I'm thinking it lies in my inability to understand how to utilize a subquery.
In the case in which the query can return more then one value? Simply add an additonal sort by.
So, a common sub query might be to get the last invoice. So you might have:
select ID, CompanyName,
(SELECT TOP 1 InvoiceDate from tblInvoice
where tblInvoice.CustomerID = tblCompany.ID
Order by InvoiceDate DESC)
As LastInvoiceDate
From tblCustomers
Now the above might work for some time, but then it will blow up since you might have two invoices for the same day!
So, all you have to do is add that extra order by clause - say on the PK of the child table like this:
Order by InvoiceDate DESC,ID DESC)
So top 1 will respect the "additional" order columns you add, and thus only ever return one row - even if there are multiple values that match the top 1 column.
I suppose in the above we could perhaps forget the invoiceDate and always take the top most last autonumber ID, but for a lot of queries, you can't always be sure - it might be we want the last most expensive invoice amount. And again, if the max value (top) was the same for two large invoice amounts, then again two rows could be return. So, simply add the extra ORDER BY clause with an 2nd column that further orders the data. And thus top 1 will only pull the first value. Your example of a top group is such an example. Just tack on the extra order by "ID" or whatever the auto number ID column is.
Hello everyone and thank you in advance for your help.
I'm having troubles with an SQL query in access.
I have
Database
I need the following output ( show and list the Store Number and PaidMoney ONLY where Paid money is the same amount 2 or more times only)
desired output
I already have 2 queries which kind of solve the problem, but each of the queries I have only solve 50% of the answer I need, the first lists all the results not only the duplicates , and the second query tells me how many duplicates there are but doesnt list and show the duplicates to me.
First Query
SELECT StoreNumber, PaidMoney
FROM Stores
Second query
SELECT StoreNumber, PaidMoney, COUNT(*)
FROM Stores
GROUP BY StoreNumber, PaidMoney
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Thank you all for your time and help!
You can join the 2 queries together and only "select" the columns from the first query. The second query will just filter out the rows from the first query that only appear once. Rows from the first query that appear more than once should appear as many times as they appear in the first query.
SELECT q1.StoreNumber, q1.PaidMoney
FROM (SELECT StoreNumber, PaidMoney
FROM Stores) q1
INNER JOIN (SELECT StoreNumber, PaidMoney, COUNT(*) ct2
FROM Stores
GROUP BY StoreNumber, PaidMoney
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1) q2
ON q1.StoreNumber = q2.StoreNumber
AND q1.PaidMoney = q2.PaidMoney
total novice here with SQL SUM function question. So, SUM function itself works as I expected it to:
select ID, sum(amount)
from table1
group by ID
There are several records for each ID and my goal is to summarize each ID on one row where the next column would give me the summarized amount of column AMOUNT.
This works fine, however I also need to filter out based on certain criteria in the summarized amount field. I.e. only look for results where the summarized amount is either bigger, smaller or between certain number.
This is the part I'm struggling with, as I can't seem to use column AMOUNT, as this messes up summarizing results.
Column name for summarized results is shown as "00002", however using this in the between or > / < clause does not work either. Tried this:
select ID, sum(amount)
from table1
where 00002 > 1000
group by ID
No error message, just blank result, however plenty of summarized results with values over 1000.
Unfortunately not sure on the engine the database runs on, however it should be some IBM-based product.
The WHERE clause will filter individual rows that don't match the condition before aggregating them.
If you want to do post aggregation filtering you need to use the HAVING Clause.
HAVING will apply the filter to the results after being grouped.
select ID, sum(amount)
from table1
group by ID
having sum(amount) > 1000
I am joining 2 tables using Cartesian Product as follows.
select p.type, i.amount
FROM products p, invoice i
where (p.account = i.id); -- column headers cant be changed despite having same info
This of course displays 2 columns with the respective values.
However I then want to manipulate the data further using COUNT/GROUP BY and SUM/GROUP BY but have been unable to find any relevant examples which I could get to work using 2 tables. (doing them all separately is ok, just getting them to work together is the problem).
For the end result, I want to show 3 columns showing a grouping of the 4 types, with the count of the entries falling under each type, and the total amount/SUM for each type, eg.
Type - Count of Types - Total Value
A - 5 - 500
B - 6 - 1000
C - 1 - 50
D - 2 - 100
Did you try this?
select p.type, count(p.type) Cnt, sum(i.amoumt) Total
FROM products p, invoice i
where (p.account = i.id)
group by p.type
Bear in mind that the result of a query is logically equivalent to a table or a view -- all of them are a projection of zero or more rows with one or more columns.
In general what you can do to a table in terms of select you can also do to a query or a view. Despite some limitations you can also apply deletes and updates to views and queries just as you can to a table.
If in doubt, create the query that returns the data you want, and then treat it as a table:
select type,
count(type) count_type,
sum(amount) sum(amount)
from (select ... )
group by type
Note also the subquery factoring clause, which has particular appplications if you need to reference the same logical data set multiple times:
with my_data as(
select ... )
select type,
count(type) count_type,
sum(amount) sum(amount)
from my_data
where type in (select ... from my_data)
group by type
Given scenario:
table fd
(cust_id, fd_id) primary-key and amount
table loan
(cust_id, l_id) primary-key and amount
I want to list all customers who have a fixed deposit with an amount less than the sum of all their loans.
Query:
SELECT cust_id
FROM fd
WHERE amount
<
(SELECT sum(amount)
FROM loan
WHERE fd.cust_id = loan.cust_id);
OR should we use
SELECT cust_id
FROM fd
WHERE amount
<
(SELECT sum(amount)
FROM loan
WHERE fd.cust_id = loan.cust_id group by cust_id);
A customer can have multiple loans but one FD is considered at a time.
GROUP BY can be omitted in this case, because there is only (one) aggregate function(s) in the SELECT list and all rows are guaranteed to belong to the same group of cust_id ( by the WHERE clause).
The aggregation will be over all rows with matching cust_id in both cases. So both queries are correct.
This would be a cleaner another way to implement the same thing:
SELECT fd.cust_id
FROM fd
JOIN loan USING (cust_id)
GROUP BY fd.cust_id, fd.amount
HAVING fd.amount < sum(loan.amount)
There is one difference: rows with identical (cust_id, amount) in fd only appear once in the result of my query, while they would appear multiple times in the original.
Either way, if there is no matching row with a non-null amount in table loan, you get no rows at all. I assume you are aware of that.
There are no need for GROUP BY since you filtered data by cust_id. In any case inner query will return the same result.
No, it isn't, because you calculate sum(amount) for customer with id = fd.cust_id, so for a single customer.
However, if somehow your subquery calculate sum for more than one customer, the group by would cause the subquery to generate more than one row and this will cause the condition(<) to fail, and thus, the query to fail.
A query with an aggregate like sum but without a group by will output one group. The aggregates will be computed over all matching rows.
A subquery in a condition clause is only allowed to return one row. If the subquery returned multiple rows, what would the following expression mean?
where 1 > (... subquery ...)
So the group by must be omitted; you would even get an error for your second query.
N.B. When you specify all, any, or some a subquery can return multiple rows:
where 1 > ALL (... subquery ...)
But it's easy to see why that doesn't make sense in your case; you'd compare one customer's data to that of another.