I'm not sure if Pivot is the way to go with this, but I am looking to take part of a row and create a new column with it.
This is my example:
+--------+------------+--------+
| Person | PetName | PetAge |
+--------+------------+--------+
| 1 | Apple | 2 |
| 1 | Banana | 6 |
| 1 | Grapefruit | 3 |
| 2 | Red | 53 |
| 2 | Blue | 8 |
+--------+------------+--------+
This is my result/goal:
+--------+---------+--------+---------+--------+------------+--------+
| Person | PetName | PetAge | PetName | PetAge | PetName | PetAge |
+--------+---------+--------+---------+--------+------------+--------+
| 1 | Apple | 2 | Banana | 6 | Grapefruit | 3 |
| 2 | Red | 53 | Blue | 8 | | |
+--------+---------+--------+---------+--------+------------+--------+
How can I get the result from my example?
UPDATE: I just noticed that your table just had the Person in the first row.
I've done something similar. What I did was add a RowNumber per pet by person (OVER PARTITION BY PERSON) to the data. This will allow the data to be broken up and an order of numbers for each pet per person.
Make your normal table with just the PetName and PetAge.
Add a Tablix with just one column and row and put the previous table in it.
For the Column grouping, use ROW_NUM. For Row use Person.
Related
I'm designing a database for a workout tracker app. Each user should be able to track multiple workouts (routines). A workout can have multiple exercises an exercise can be used in many workouts. Each exercise will have a specific track type (weight and reps, distance and time, only reps).
My tables so far:
| User | |
|------|-------|
| id | name |
| 1 | Ilka |
| 2 | James |
| Exercise | | |
|----------|---------------------|---------------|
| id | name | track_type_id |
| 1 | Barbell Bench Press | 1 |
| 2 | Squats | 1 |
| 3 | Deadlifts | 1 |
| 4 | Rowing Machine | 3 |
| Workout | | |
|---------|---------|-----------------|
| id | user_id | name |
| 1 | 1 | Chest & Triceps |
| 2 | 1 | Legs |
| Workout_Exerice (Junction table) | |
|-----------------|------------------|------------|
| id | exersice_id | workout_id |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 4 | 1 |
| Workout_Sets | | | |
|--------------|---------------------|------|--------|
| id | workout_exersice_id | reps | weight |
| 1 | 1 | 12 | 120 |
| 2 | 1 | 10 | 120 |
| 3 | 1 | 8 | 120 |
| 4 | 2 | 10 | 220 |
| 5 | 3 | null | null |
| TrackType | |
|-----------|-----------------|
| id | name |
| 1 | Weight and Reps |
| 2 | Reps Only |
| 3 | Distance Time |
My issue is how to incorporate the TrackType table for each workout set, my first option was to create columns in the Workout_Sets table for each tracking type (weight and reps, distance and time, only reps) but that means for many rows I will have many nulls. Another option I thought was to use an EAV type table but I'm not sure. Also do you think my design is efficient (Over-normalization)?
I would say that the most efficient way is to have nulls in your table. The alternative would require you to split many of the category's into separate tables. Also a recommendation is that you start factoring a User ID table into your database
Your description states that “Each exercise will have a specific track type” suggesting a one-to-one relationship between Exercise and TrackType, and that the relationship is unchanging. As such, the exercise table should have a TrackType column.
I suspect, however, that your problem description may be lacking specificity, making it difficult to give you sound advice. For instance, if the TrackType can vary for any given exercise, your TrackType column may belong on the Workout_Sets table. If the relationship between TrackType and Exercise/Workout_Sets is many-to-many, then you will need another junction table.
Your question regarding “over-normalization” depends upon many factors that are specific to your solution. In general, I would say no - the degree of normalization appears to be appropriate.
I am using Teradata SQL Assistant Version TD 16.10.06.01 ...
I have seen a lot people transpose data for set smallish tables but I am working on thousands of clients and need the break the columns up into Line Item Values to compare orders/highlight differences between orders. Problem is it is all horizontally linked and I need to transpose it to Id,Transaction id,Version and Line Item Value 1, Line Item Value 2... then another column comparing values to see if they changed.
example:
+----+------------+-----------+------------+----------------+--------+----------+----------+------+-------------+
| Id | First Name | Last Name | DOB | transaction id | Make | Location | Postcode | Year | Price |
+----+------------+-----------+------------+----------------+--------+----------+----------+------+-------------+
| 1 | John | Smith | 15/11/2001 | 1654654 | Audi | NSW | 2222 | 2019 | $ 10,000.00 |
| 2 | Mark | White | 11/02/2002 | 1661200 | BMW | WA | 8888 | 2016 | $ 8,999.00 |
| 3 | Bob | Grey | 10/05/2002 | 1667746 | Ford | QLD | 9999 | 2013 | $ 3,000.00 |
| 4 | Phil | Faux | 6/08/2002 | 1674292 | Holden | SA | 1111 | 2000 | $ 5,800.00 |
+----+------------+-----------+------------+----------------+--------+----------+----------+------+-------------+
hoping to change the data to :
+----+----------+----------+----------+----------------+----------+----------+----------------+---------+-----+
| id | trans_id | Vers_ord | Item Val | Ln_Itm_Dscrptn | Org_Val | Updt_Val | Amndd_Ord_chck | Lbl_Rnk | ... |
+----+----------+----------+----------+----------------+----------+----------+----------------+---------+-----+
| 1 | 1654654 | 2 | 11169 | Make | Audi BLK | Audi WHT | Yes | 1 | |
| 1 | 1654654 | 2 | 11189 | Location | NSW | WA | Yes | 2 | |
| 1 | 1654654 | 2 | 23689 | Postcode | 2222 | 6000 | Yes | 3 | |
+----+----------+----------+----------+----------------+----------+----------+----------------+---------+-----+
Recently with smaller data I created a table added in Values then used a case statement when value 1 then xyz with a product join ... and the data warehouse admins didn't mention anything out of order. but I only had row 16 by 200 column table to transpose ( Sum, Avg, Count, Median(function) x 4 subsets of clients) , which were significantly smaller than my current tables to make comparisons with.
I am worried my prior method will probably slow the data Warehouse down, plus take me significant amount of time to type the SQL.
Is there a better way to transpose large tables?
I have the following table:
+----+---------+-------+
| id | Key | Value |
+----+---------+-------+
| 1 | name | Bob |
| 1 | surname | Test |
| 1 | car | Tesla |
| 2 | name | Mark |
| 2 | cat | Bobby |
+----+---------+-------+
Key can hold basically anything. I would like to arrive at the following output:
+----+------+---------+-------+-------+
| id | name | surname | car | cat |
+----+------+---------+-------+-------+
| 1 | Bob | Test | Tesla | |
| 2 | Mark | | | Bobby |
+----+------+---------+-------+-------+
Then I would like to merge the output with another table (based on the id).
Is it possible to do, if I don't know what the Key column holds? Values there are dynamic.
Could you point me to the right direction?
I'm designing a table for product categories for a kinda-e-commerce site. The table currently looks a bit like this:
| id | name | level | value | parent_id |
+----+-------------+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | Food | 0 | food | NULL |
| 2 | Phone | 0 | phone | NULL |
| 3 | Thing | 0 | thing | NULL |
| 4 | Pasta | 1 | pasta | 1 |
| 5 | Apple | 1 | apple | 2 |
| 6 | SubThing | 1 | subthing | 3 |
| 7 | Tagliatelle | 2 | tagliatelle | 4 |
| 8 | iPhone 11 | 2 | iphone_11 | 5 |
| 9 | SubSubThing | 2 | subsubthing | 6 |
Basically I don't want to create a whole new table and map the relationships every time people want to add a new sub-level to the category structure, and rely on level and parent_id columns to let my code know how to do with this category and what its parent is. I'm completely new to model designing and this is the best I could come up with. Is there any downside to this self-referencing structure that I'm just too noob to realize?
If you are certain the sub level (child) will only ever be referenced by that single row or parent then the design should suffice. You may run into issues if multiple child elements need to roll up into that parent entity.
+--------+---------+----------+----------+-------+------------+------------+
| F Name | L Name | Event ID | Group ID | Hours | Event Type | Event Name |
+--------+---------+----------+----------+-------+------------+------------+
| Bill | Johnson | 1 | | 3 | Event | Indirect |
| Janet | Jackson | | 1 | 1 | Group | |
| Bill | Johnson | | 1 | 1 | Group | |
| Chris | Margot | 2 | | 1.5 | Event | Direct |
| Janet | Jackson | | 1 | 1 | Group | |
+--------+---------+----------+----------+-------+------------+------------+
I have a table like this. I need to calculate the sum of the hours column if the event type is NOT group and direct.
I then need to sum hours if the event type is group but only once per person per group id. (So Janet would have 1 hour for her group not 2 because they have the same group ID. I am getting unexpected results.
I know It will involve a self join. The table is called public.event_by_wkr event_by_wkr in the FROM part of the query. I see this as rather difficult but it may not be. If you need more information I will provide it.