I use Postgres 9.1. I am running a query which is like
select count(distinct(user_id)) from users where user_id in (11,32,763,324,45,76,37,98,587);
Here the list of user_ids contains 600 entries. The result I am getting is 597. Thus there are 3 user_ids from the list, which are not present in the users. How do I get to know these 3 user_ids?
Please note that user_id is not the Primary Key of users
DISTINCT in your count-query only makes sense if user_id is not defined UNIQUE.
We don't need it either way for the query you ask for:
SELECT t.user_id
FROM unnest('{11,32,763,324,45,76,37,98,587}'::int[]) t(user_id)
LEFT JOIN users u USING (user_id)
WHERE u.user_id IS NULL;
Beware of NOT IN if NULL values can be involved on either side of the expression! IN / NOT IN with a long value list also scales poorly.
Details:
Optimizing a Postgres query with a large IN
Select rows which are not present in other table
Related
I can't believe this hasn't been answered elsewhere, but I don't seem to know the right words to convey what I'm trying to do. I'm using Ruby/Rails and PostgreSQL.
I have a bunch of Users in the DB that I'm trying to add to a Group based on a name search. I need to return Users that do not belong to a particular Group, but there is a join table as well (UserGroups, with the appropriate FKs).
Is there a simple way to use this configuration to perform this query without having to result to grabbing all the Users from which belong to the group and doing something like .where.not(id: users_in_group.pluck(:id)) (these groups can be pretty huge, so I don't want to send that query to the DB on a text search as the user types).
I need to return Users that do not belong to a particular Group
SELECT *
FROM users u
WHERE username ~ 'some pattern' -- ?
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT FROM user_groups ug
WHERE ug.group_id = 123 -- your group_id to exclude here
AND ug.user_id = u.id
);
See:
Select rows which are not present in other table
Well, the query I need is simple, and maybe is in another question, but there is a performance thing in what I need, so:
I have a table of users with 10.000 rows, the table contains id, email and more data.
In another table called orders I have way more rows, maybe 150.000 rows.
In this orders I have the id of the user that made the order, and also a status of the order. The status could be a number from 0 to 9 (or null).
My final requirement is to have every user with the id, email, some other column , and the number of orders with status 3 or 7. it does not care of its 3 or 7, I just need the amount
But I need to do this query in a low-impact way (or a performant way).
What is the best approach?
I need to run this in a redash with postgres 10.
This sounds like a join and group by:
select u.*, count(*)
from users u join
orders o
on o.user_id = u.user_id
where o.status in (3, 7)
group by u.user_id;
Postgres is usually pretty good about optimizing these queries -- and the above assumes that users(user_id) is the primary key -- so this should work pretty well.
I have the following problem in Oracle 11g:
I have a table TBL_PERSON listing all users of my application and I need to find out all users of the database that are NOT mentioned in TBL_PERSON.
Count of tbl_person is 4207.
Count of dba_users/all_users is 4244. This means, that the difference of 37 users are system users not using the application.
So far so good. How do I identity the system users?
ID in table INT_PERSON is equal to USER_ID in dba_users. I expect a list of all users from dba_users table not listed in INT_PERSON. (37 rows)
I tried the following:
SELECT *
FROM dba_users
WHERE USER_ID
NOT
IN (SELECT ID
FROM LCM.TBL_INT_PERSON);
The result is 3804 rows, also showing users from INT_PERSON -> not what I expected
Then tried:
SELECT *
FROM dba_users a
WHERE USER_ID
NOT
IN (SELECT ID
FROM LCM.TBL_INT_PERSON b
where b.id = a.User_id);
Which makes no difference.
Those post do not solve my problem:
Find records in one table which does not have a matching coulmn data existing in another table
Select records from a table, which don't exist in another table
Or is it a secret of the dba_users table? Where is my mistake?
How do I identity the system users?
First verify the count of application users.
This query should return all the ID of the application users, i.e. 4207
If not - you have other problem, than you describes.
select USER_ID from dba_users
INTERSECT
select ID from TBL_INT_PERSON;
Now show the system users
select USER_ID from dba_users
MINUS
select ID from TBL_INT_PERSON;
This should return the IDs of the system user.
General note - simple subtraction of count(*) of two tables could be misleading, as there could be duplicated key and nulls in the tables. Using set operation as above is more secure.
It would be something like:
SELECT * FROM users ORDER BY id ORDER("abc","ghk","pqr"...);
In my order clause there might be 1000 records and all are dynamic.
A quick google search gave me below result:
SELECT * FROM users ORDER BY case id
when "abc" then 1
when "ghk" then 2
when "pqr" then 3 end;
As I said all my order clause values are dynamic. So is there any suggestion for me?
Your example isn't entirely clear, as it appears that a simple ORDER BY would suffice to order your id's alphabetically. However, it appears you are trying to create a dynamic ordering scheme that may not be alphabetical. In that case, my recommendation would be to use a lookup table for the values that you will be ordering by. This serves two purposes: first, it allows you to easily reorder the items without altering each entry in the users table, and second, it avoids (or at lest reduces) problems with typos and other issues that can occur with "magic strings."
This would look something like:
Lookup Table:
CREATE TABLE LookupValues (
Id CHAR(3) PRIMARY KEY,
Order INT
);
Query:
SELECT
u.*
FROM
users u
INNER JOIN
LookupTable l
ON
u.Id = l.Id
ORDER BY
l.Order
I'm trying to wrap my head around SQL and I need some help figuring out how to do the following query in PostgreSQL 9.3.
I have a users table, and a friends table that lists user IDs and the user IDs of friends in multiple rows.
I would like to query the user table, and ORDER BY the number of mutual friends in common to a user ID.
So, the friends table would look like:
user_id | friend_user_id
1 | 4
1 | 5
2 | 10
3 | 7
And so on, so user 1 lists 4 and 5 as friends, and user 2 lists 10 as a friend, so I want to sort by the highest count of user 1 in friend_user_id for the result of user_id in the select.
The Postgres way to do this:
SELECT *
FROM users u
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT user_id, count(*) AS friends
FROM friends
) f USING (user_id)
ORDER BY f.friends DESC NULLS LAST, user_id -- as tiebreaker
The keyword AS is just noise for table aliases. But don't omit it from column aliases. The manual on "Omitting the AS Key Word":
In FROM items, both the standard and PostgreSQL allow AS to be omitted
before an alias that is an unreserved keyword. But this is impractical
for output column names, because of syntactic ambiguities.
Bold emphasis mine.
ISNULL() is a custom extension of MySQL or SQL Server. Postgres uses the SQL-standard function COALESCE(). But you don't need either here. Use the NULLS LAST clause instead, which is faster and cleaner. See:
PostgreSQL sort by datetime asc, null first?
Multiple users will have the same number of friends. These peers would be sorted arbitrarily. Repeated execution might yield different sort order, which is typically not desirable. Add more expressions to ORDER BY as tiebreaker. Ultimately, the primary key resolves any remaining ambiguity.
If the two tables share the same column name user_id (like they should) you can use the syntax shortcut USING in the join clause. Another standard SQL feature. Welcome side effect: user_id is only listed once in the output for SELECT *, as opposed to when joining with ON. Many clients wouldn't even accept duplicate column names in the output.
Something like this?
SELECT * FORM [users] u
LEFT JOIN (SELECT user_id, COUNT(*) friends FROM fields) f
ON u.user_id = f.user_id
ORDER BY ISNULL(f.friends,0) DESC