I have two types of docs say obj_type_A and obj_type_B which may or may not be in a folder of type obj_type_fldr.
I need to get the count of both the docs present in the folder of type obj_type_fldr.
If it had an sql we can write sub-query in select clause. But DQL didn't support this function.
The trick here is to utilize the r_object_type attribute of dm_sysobject. So what you want is probably only achievable if both of your custom types are descendants of dm_sysobject. And in that case, this is how you do it.
Basic count
SELECT count(r_object_id), r_object_type
FROM dm_sysobject
WHERE ANY i_folder_id IN (
SELECT r_object_id
FROM obj_type_fldr
)
AND r_object_type IN ('obj_type_A','obj_type_B')
GROUP BY r_object_type
Example output:
dm_attr_0001 r_object_type
------------ --------------------------------
271 obj_type_A
195 obj_type_B
(2 rows affected)
Count per folder
Additionally, if you want to count how many documents are in each folder, just add i_folder_id to your query like this:
SELECT count(r_object_id), r_object_type, i_folder_id
FROM dm_sysobject
WHERE ANY i_folder_id IN (
SELECT r_object_id
FROM obj_type_fldr
)
AND r_object_type IN ('obj_type_A','obj_type_B')
GROUP BY r_object_type, i_folder_id
Example output:
dm_attr_0001 r_object_type i_folder_id
------------ ---------------- ----------------
271 obj_type_A 0b00000080000001
100 obj_type_B 0b00000080000001
95 obj_type_B 0b00000080000002
(3 rows affected)
You can of course extend this query with additional clauses, e.g. in order to count only documents that are within a specific path, but you get the general idea.
Related
I am trying to count the number of times that name in NAME appear in BOSS_PATH.
The source
NAME BOSS_PATH
---------------------
WIN WIN
JOHN WIN|JOHN
DANG WIN|JOHN|DANG
JOSH JOSH
The result I want
NAME BOSS_PATH COUNT_UNDER
--------------------------------------
WIN WIN 2
JOHN WIN|JOHN 1
DANG WIN|JOHN|DANG 0
JOSH JOSH 0
My thought is the query would be something like this
(SUM(the frequency of NAME appears in BOSS_PATH) - 1) AS COUNT_UNDER
But I still have problem writing this as an actual query.
This will probably do it (though no idea how it will perform if there is a large volume of data). You can probably combine some of the steps but I've written it out as multiple CTEs to show the logical progression of the approach I used:
-- Get a CTE of all the names
WITH NAMES AS (
SELECT NAME FROM HIER_DATA
),
-- Get a CTE of all the paths
PATHS AS (
SELECT BOSS_PATH FROM HIER_DATA
),
-- Get a CTE of every name/path combination
-- The FULL JOIN syntax may need to be adjusted for your specific DBMS
CROSS_JOIN AS (
SELECT * FROM NAMES
FULL JOIN PATHS
)
-- Someone reports to the NAME if the BOSS_PATH contains the NAME followed by a '|'
-- If this is true give the record a value of 1 and sum by the NAME
SELECT NAME, SUM(CASE WHEN POSITION(NAME||'|',boss_path) > 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) IS_PARENT
FROM CROSS_JOIN
GROUP BY NAME
ORDER BY NAME
;
I am writing some SQL queries in AWS Athena. I have 3 tables search, retrieval and intent. In search table I have 2 columns id and term i.e.
id term
1 abc
1 bcd
2 def
1 ghd
What I want is to write a query to get:
id term
1 abc, bcd, ghd
2 def
I know this can be done using STUFF and FOR XML PATH but, in Athena all the features of SQL are yet not supported. Is there any other way to achieve this. My current query is:
select search.id , STUFF(
(select ',' + search.term
from search
FOR XML PATH('')),1,1,'')
FROM search
group by search.id
Also, I have one more question. I have retrieval table that consist of 3 columns i.e.:
id time term
1 0 abc
1 20 bcd
1 100 gfh
2 40 hfg
2 60 lkf
What I want is:
id time term
1 100 gfh
2 60 lkf
I want to write a query to get the id and term on the basis of max value of time. Here is my current query:
select retrieval.id, max(retrieval.time), retrieval.term
from search
group by retrieval.id, retrieval.term
order by max(retrieval.time)
I am getting duplicate id's along with the term. I think it is because, I am doing group by on id and term both. But, I am not sure how can I achieve it without using group by.
The XML method is brokenness in SQL Server. No reason to attempt it in any other database.
One method uses arrays:
select s.id, array_agg(s.term)
from search s
group by s.id;
Because the database supports arrays, you should learn to use them. You can convert the array to a string:
select s.id, array_join(array_agg(s.term), ',') as terms
from search s
group by s.id;
Group by is a group operation: think that you are clubbing the results and have to find min, max, count etc.
I am answering only one question. Use it to find the answer to question 1
For question 2:
select
from (select id, max(time) as time
from search
group by id, term
order by max(time)
) search_1, search as search_2
where search_1.id = search_2.id
and search_1.time = search_2.time
I have a very very small database that I am needing to return a field from a specific row.
My table looks like this (simplified)
Material_Reading Table
pointID Material_Name
123 WoodFloor
456 Carpet
789 Drywall
111 Drywall
222 Carpet
I need to be able to group these together and see the different kinds (WoodFloor, Carpet, and Drywall) and need to be able to select which one I want and have that returned. So my select statement would put the various different types in a list and then I could have a variable which would select one of the rows - 1, 2, 3 for example.
I hope that makes sense, this is somewhat a non-standard implementation because its a filemaker database unfortunately, so itstead of one big SQL statement doing all I need I will have several that will each select an individual row that I indicate.
What I have tried so far:
SELECT DISTINCT Material_Name FROM MATERIAL_READING WHERE Room_KF = $roomVariable
This works and returns a list of all my material names which are in the room indicated by the room variable. But I cant get a specific one by supplying a row number.
I have tried using LIMIT 1 OFFSET 1. Possibly not supported by Filemaker or I am doing it wrong, I tried it like this - it gives an error:
SELECT DISTINCT Material_Name FROM MATERIAL_READING WHERE _Room_KF = $roomVariable ORDER BY Material_Name LIMIT 1 OFFSET 1
I am able to use ORDER BY like this:
SELECT DISTINCT Material_Name FROM MATERIAL_READING WHERE Room_KF = $roomVariable ORDER BY Material_Name
In MSSQL
SELECT DISTINCT Material_Name
FROM MATERIAL_READING
WHERE _Room_KF = 'roomVariable'
ORDER BY Material_Name
OFFSET N ROWS
FETCH NEXT 5 ROWS ONLY
where N->from which row does to start
X->no.of rows to retrieve which were started from (N+1 row)
Hi I know how to use the group by clause for sql. I am not sure how to explain this so Ill draw some charts. Here is my original data:
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
user1 9
user1 3
user2 1
user2 10
user3 97
Here is the output I need
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
Is this even possible?
The normal method for this is to handle it in the presentation layer, not the database layer.
Reasons:
The Name field is a property of that data row
If you leave the Name out, how do you know what Location goes with which name?
You are implicitly relying on the order of the data, which in SQL is a very bad practice (since there is no inherent ordering to the returned data)
Any solution will need to involve a cursor or a loop, which is not what SQL is optimized for - it likes working in SETS not on individual rows
Hope this helps
SELECT A.FINAL_NAME, A.LOCATION
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM YOUR_TABLE_7 YT) A
As Jirka correctly pointed out, I was using the Outer select, distinct and raw Name unnecessarily. My mistake was that as I used DISTINCT , I got the resulted sorted like
1 1
2 user2 1
3 user3 97
4 user1 1
5 3
6 9
7 10
I wanted to avoid output like this.
Hence I added the raw id and outer select
However , removing the DISTINCT solves the problem.
Hence only this much is enough
SELECT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM SO_BUFFER_TABLE_7 YT
Thanks Jirka
If you're using straight SQL*Plus to make your report (don't laugh, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it), you can do this with the BREAK command:
SQL> break on name
SQL> WITH q AS (
SELECT 'user1' NAME, 1 LOCATION FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 9 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 3 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 1 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 10 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user3', 97 FROM dual
)
SELECT NAME,LOCATION
FROM q
ORDER BY name;
NAME LOCATION
----- ----------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
6 rows selected.
SQL>
I cannot but agree with the other commenters that this kind of problem does not look like it should ever be solved using SQL, but let us face it anyway.
SELECT
CASE main.name WHERE preceding_id IS NULL THEN main.name ELSE null END,
main.location
FROM mytable main LEFT JOIN mytable preceding
ON main.name = preceding.name AND MIN(preceding.id) < main.id
GROUP BY main.id, main.name, main.location, preceding.name
ORDER BY main.id
The GROUP BY clause is not responsible for the grouping job, at least not directly. In the first approximation, an outer join to the same table (LEFT JOIN below) can be used to determine on which row a particular value occurs for the first time. This is what we are after. This assumes that there are some unique id values that make it possible to arbitrarily order all the records. (The ORDER BY clause does NOT do this; it orders the output, not the input of the whole computation, but it is still necessary to make sure that the output is presented correctly, because the remaining SQL does not imply any particular order of processing.)
As you can see, there is still a GROUP BY clause in the SQL, but with a perhaps unexpected purpose. Its job is to "undo" a side effect of the LEFT JOIN, which is duplication of all main records that have many "preceding" ( = successfully joined) records.
This is quite normal with GROUP BY. The typical effect of a GROUP BY clause is a reduction of the number of records; and impossibility to query or test columns NOT listed in the GROUP BY clause, except through aggregate functions like COUNT, MIN, MAX, or SUM. This is because these columns really represent "groups of values" due to the GROUP BY, not just specific values.
If you are using SQL*Plus, use the BREAK function. In this case, break on NAME.
If you are using another reporting tool, you may be able to compare the "name" field to the previous record and suppress printing when they are equal.
If you use GROUP BY, output rows are sorted according to the GROUP BY columns as if you had an ORDER BY for the same columns. To avoid the overhead of sorting that GROUP BY produces, add ORDER BY NULL:
SELECT a, COUNT(b) FROM test_table GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
Relying on implicit GROUP BY sorting in MySQL 5.6 is deprecated. To achieve a specific sort order of grouped results, it is preferable to use an explicit ORDER BY clause. GROUP BY sorting is a MySQL extension that may change in a future release; for example, to make it possible for the optimizer to order groupings in whatever manner it deems most efficient and to avoid the sorting overhead.
For full information - http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
SQL GROUP BY STATEMENT
SQL GROUP BY clause is used in collaboration with the SELECT statement to arrange identical data into groups.
Syntax:
1. SELECT column_nm, aggregate_function(column_nm) FROM table_nm WHERE column_nm operator value GROUP BY column_nm;
Example :
To understand the GROUP BY clauserefer the sample database.Below table showing fields from “order” table:
1. |EMPORD_ID|employee1ID|customerID|shippers_ID|
Below table showing fields from “shipper” table:
1. | shippers_ID| shippers_Name |
Below table showing fields from “table_emp1” table:
1. | employee1ID| first1_nm | last1_nm |
Example :
To find the number of orders sent by each shipper.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM orders LEFT JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID = shipper.shippers_ID GROUP BY shippers_Name;
1. | shippers_Name | No_of_orders |
Example :
To use GROUP BY statement on more than one column.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, table_emp1.last1_nm, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM ((orders INNER JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID=shipper.shippers_ID) INNER JOIN table_emp1 ON orders.employee1ID = table_emp1.employee1ID)
2. GROUP BY shippers_Name,last1_nm;
| shippers_Name | last1_nm |No_of_orders |
for more clarification refer my link
http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
If we have a table called FollowUp and has rows [ ID(int) , Value(Money) ]
and we have some rows in it, for example
ID --Value
1------70
2------100
3------150
8------200
20-----250
45-----280
and we want to make one SQL Query that get each row ID,Value and the previous Row Value in which data appear as follow
ID --- Value ---Prev_Value
1 ----- 70 ---------- 0
2 ----- 100 -------- 70
3 ----- 150 -------- 100
8 ----- 200 -------- 150
20 ---- 250 -------- 200
45 ---- 280 -------- 250
i make the following query but i think it's so bad in performance in huge amount of data
SELECT FollowUp.ID, FollowUp.Value,
(
SELECT F1.Value
FROM FollowUp as F1 where
F1.ID =
(
SELECT Max(F2.ID)
FROM FollowUp as F2 where F2.ID < FollowUp.ID
)
) AS Prev_Value
FROM FollowUp
So can anyone help me to get the best solution for such a problem ?
This sql should perform better then the one you have above, although these type of queries tend to be a little performance intensive... so anything you can put in them to limit the size of the dataset you are looking at will help tremendously. For example if you are looking at a specific date range, put that in.
SELECT followup.value,
( SELECT TOP 1 f1.VALUE
FROM followup as f1
WHERE f1.id<followup.id
ORDER BY f1.id DESC
) AS Prev_Value
FROM followup
HTH
You can use the OVER statement to generate nicely increasing row numbers.
select
rownr = row_number() over (order by id)
, value
from your_table
With the numbers, you can easily look up the previous row:
with numbered_rows
as (
select
rownr = row_number() over (order by id)
, value
from your_table
)
select
cur.value
, IsNull(prev.value,0)
from numbered_rows cur
left join numbered_rows prev on cur.rownr = prev.rownr + 1
Hope this is useful.
This is not an answer to your actual question.
Instead, I feel that you are approaching the problem from a wrong direction:
In properly normalized relational databases the tuples ("rows") of each table should contain references to other db items instead of the actual values. Maintaining these relations between tuples belongs to the data insertion part of the codebase.
That is, if containing the value of a tuple with closest, smaller id number really belongs into your data model.
If the requirement to know the previous value comes from the view part of the application - that is, a single view into the data that needs to format it in certain way - you should pull the contents out, sorted by id, and handle the requirement in view specific code.
In your case, I would assume that knowing the previous tuples' value really would belong in the view code instead of the database.
EDIT: You did mention that you store them separately and just want to make a query for it. Even still, application code would probably be the more logical place to do this combining.
What about pulling the lines into your application and computing the previous value there?
Create a stored procedure and use a cursor to iterate and produce rows.
You could use the function 'LAG'.
SELECT ID,
Value,
LAG(value) OVER(ORDER BY ID) AS Prev_Value
FROM FOLLOWUP;