I have list of Ids 31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136 which is dynamic.
When I run query
select id,name from master_movievod where id in(31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136);
I get following result
31136|Independence Day
31160|Planet of the Apes
31165|Mrs. Doubtfire
31199|Moulin Rouge
31321|Adult Movie 2
31322|Adult Movie 3
This is sorted list in ascending order.
I want the list in the same order which I give as input like
31165|Mrs. Doubtfire
31160|Planet of the Apes
31321|Adult Movie 2
31322|Adult Movie 3
31199|Moulin Rouge
31136|Independece Day
Without an order by clause, there's no guarantee on the order a database returns the results to you. SQLite, unfortunately, doesn't have something like MySQL's field for custom sorting, but you can jimmy-rig something with a case expression:
SELECT id, name
FROM master_movievod
WHERE id IN (31165, 31160, 31321, 31322, 31199, 31136)
ORDER BY CASE ID WHEN 31165 THEN 0
WHEN 31160 THEN 1
WHEN 31321 THEN 2
WHEN 31322 THEN 3
WHEN 31199 THEN 4
WHEN 31136 THEN 5
END ASC
Unfortunately, SQLite does not have an option like MySQL's FIELD for doing a custom ordering. You are left with two options. The first is that you could create a custom table containing the ordering you want and use that to sort. This option isn't very attractive. The second (and easier) option is to use ORDER BY CASE to achieve the order you want:
SELECT id, name FROM master_movievod
WHERE id IN (31165,31160,31321,31322,31199,31136)
ORDER BY
CASE id
WHEN 31165 THEN 0
WHEN 31160 THEN 1
WHEN 31321 THEN 2
WHEN 31322 THEN 3
WHEN 31199 THEN 4
WHEN 31136 THEN 5
END ASC
Related
I have some data like this as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
and I need a query to get the results as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 3
3 4
Please consider that I'm a beginner in SQL.
I assume you want the Count of the row
SELECT Acc_Id, COUNT(*)
FROM Table
GROUP BY Acc_Id
Try this:
select Acc_Id, MAX(Row_No)
from table
group by Acc_Id
As a beginner then this is your first exposure to aggregation and grouping. You may want to look at the documentation on group by now that this problem has motivated your interest in a solutions. Grouping operates by looking at rows with common column values, that you specify, and collapsing them into a single row which represents the group. In your case values in Acc_Id are the names for your groups.
The other answers are both correct in the the final two columns are going to be equivalent with your data.
select Acc_Id, count(*), max(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
If you have gaps in the numbering then they won't be the same. You'll have to decide whether you're actually looking for a count of rows of a maximum of a value within a column. At this point you can also consider a number of other aggregate functions that will be useful to you in the future. (Note that the actual values here are pretty much meaningless in this context.)
select Acc_Id, min(Row_No), sum(Row_No), avg(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
This is how my query results look like currently. How can I get the MAX() value for each unique id ?
IE,
for 5267139 is 8.
for 5267145 is 4
5267136 5
5267137 8
5267137 2
5267139 8
5267139 5
5267139 3
5267141 4
5267141 3
5267145 4
5267145 3
5267146 1
5267147 2
5267152 3
5267153 3
5267155 8
SELECT DISTINCT st.ScoreID, st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
FROM ScoreTrackingType stt
LEFT JOIN ScoreTracking st
ON stt.ScoreTrackingTypeID = st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
ORDER BY st.ScoreID, st.ScoreTrackingTypeID DESC
GROUP BY will partition your table into separate blocks based on the column(s) you specify. You can then apply an aggregate function (MAX in this case) against each of the blocks -- this behavior applies by default with the below syntax:
SELECT First_column, MAX(Second_column) AS Max_second_column
FROM Table
GROUP BY First_column
EDIT: Based on the query above, it looks like you don't really need the ScoreTrackingType table at all, but leaving it in place, you could use:
SELECT st.ScoreID, MAX(st.ScoreTrackingTypeID) AS ScoreTrackingTypeID
FROM ScoreTrackingType stt
LEFT JOIN ScoreTracking st ON stt.ScoreTrackingTypeID = st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
GROUP BY st.ScoreID
ORDER BY st.ScoreID
The GROUP BY will obviate the need for DISTINCT, MAX will give you the value you are looking for, and the ORDER BY will still apply, but since there will only be a single ScoreTrackingTypeID value for each ScoreID you can pull it out of the ordering.
SELECT * FROM tblItems
WHERE itemId IN (9,1,4)
Returns in the order that SQL finds them in (which happens to be 1, 4, 9) however, I want them returned in the order that I specified in the array.
I know I could reorder them after in my native language (obj c), but is there a neat way to do this in SQL?
Somthing like this would be great:
ORDER BY itemId (9,1,4) -- <-- this dosn't work :)
Probably the best way to do this is create a table of item IDs, which also includes a rank order. Then you can join and sort by the rank order.
Create a table like this:
itemID rank
9 1
1 2
4 3
Then your query would look like this:
select tblItems.* from tblItems
inner join items_to_get on
items_to_get.itemID = tblItems.itemID
order by rank
Use a CASE expression to map the ID values to an increasing sequence:
... ORDER BY CASE itemId
WHEN 9 THEN 1
WHEN 1 THEN 2
ELSE 3
END
I had the same task once in a mysql environment.
I ended up using
ORDER BY FIND_IN_SET(itemID, '9,1,4')
this is working for me since then. I hope it also works for sqlite
You can add a case construct to your select clause.
select case when itemid = 9 then 1
when itemid = 1 then 2 else 3 end sortfield
etc
order by sortfield
You could create a procedure to order the data in SQL, but that would be much more complicated than its native language counterpart.
There's no "neat way" to resort the data like that in SQL -- the WHERE clause of a SELECT simply says "if these criteria are matched, include the row"; it's not (and it cannot be) an ordering criterion.
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/
Say I have a query "select * from clauses where id in (0,2,5,1,3)" and I actually want the rows returned in the same order they are specified the where clause. The order of the IDs will change from query to query and there is no pattern to the order.
I know it's possible to alter the data model, create temp tables, etc. But trust me that those types of solutions will not work in my situation. I also am unable to alter the order of the result objects in my application code.
I'm also aware that different database engines sort things differently, there are no guarantees in some situations blah blah blah. I just want to no, is this possible?
I'll be using mysql or sql server if that helps :)
On MySQL, you can use FIND_IN_SET:
ORDER BY FIND_IN_SET(id, '0,2,5,1,3')
The most portable means of ordering would be to use a CASE expression:
ORDER BY CASE id
WHEN 0 THEN 1
WHEN 2 THEN 2
WHEN 5 THEN 3
WHEN 1 THEN 4
WHEN 3 THEN 5
END
Select ..
From Clauses
Where Id In(0,2,5,1,3)
Order By Case Id
When 0 Then 1
When 2 Then 2
When 5 Then 3
When 1 Then 4
When 3 Then 5
...
End