I have a MS Access database and in it are two tables called [Pattern] and [Element].
The following example's show the tables and their respective datatype.
Table 1: [Pattern]
patternID - key
pStart - short date
pEnd - short date
Table 2: [Element]
elementID - key
patternID
text -text(2)
I want to create a query where it will repeat the pattern contained within the text field of the element table. For example
for patternID = 1 there are 4 elementID entries with the text values 1,2,3,4
How do I get a query to repeat 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 for as long as the difference between the two dates, pStart and pEnd in the pattern table?
Hopefully this makes sense, thanks in advance. I usually work in Excel so Access is new to me.
You will need a number or factor table with one field with integers from 0 to at least the maximum day count you will have.
Then you can create the first Cartesian query:
Select
patternID
From
Pattern,
Factors
Where
DateAdd("d", [Factor], [pStart]) <= pEnd
Save this as, say, Patterns and create a second Cartesian query:
Select
Element.patternID,
Element.elementID,
Element.Text
From
Patterns,
Element
Where
Patterns.patternID = Element.patternID
Order By
Element.patternID,
Element.elementID,
Element.Text
I'm unsure if you are doing this in the query designer or sql view. If your writing the sql, this might help:
select distinct E.text
from Element E, Pattern P
where E.patternID = P.patternID
AND p.Start <> p.End
Related
I have a table like this one (in a SQL SERVER):
field_name
field_descriptor
tag1
tag2
tag3
tag4
tag5
house
your home
home
house
null
null
null
car
first car
car
wheel
null
null
null
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I'm developing a WIKI with a searchbar, which should be able to handle a query with more than one string for search. As an user enters a second string (spaced) the query should be able to return results that match restrictively the two strings (if exists) in any column, and so with a three string search.
Easy to do for one string with a simple SELECT with ORs.
Tried in the fronted in JS with libraries like match-sorter but it's heavy with a table with more than 100,000 results and more in the future.
I thought the query should do the heavy work, but maybe there is no simple way doing it.
Thanks in advance!
Tried to do the heavy work with all results in frontend with filtering and other libraries like match-sorter. Works but take several seconds and blocks the front.
Tried to create a simple OR/AND query but the posibilities with 3 search-strings (could be 1, 2 or 3) matching any column to any other possibility is overwhelming.
You can use STRING_SPLIT to get a separate row per search word from the search words string. Then only select rows where all search words have a match.
The query should look like this:
select *
from mytable t
where exists
(
select null
from (select value from string_split(#search, ' ')) search
having min(case when search.value in (t.tag1, t.tag2, t.tag3, t.tag4, t.tag5) then 1 else 0 end) = 1
);
Unfortunately, SQL Server seems to have a flaw (or even a bug) here and reports:
Msg 8124 Level 16 State 1 Line 8
Multiple columns are specified in an aggregated expression containing an outer reference. If an expression being aggregated contains an outer reference, then that outer reference must be the only column referenced in the expression.
Demo: https://dbfiddle.uk/kNL1PVOZ
I don't have more time at hand right now, so you may use this query as a starting point to get the final query.
I have a database table with document names stored as a VARCHAR and I need a way to figure out what the lowest available sequence number is. There are many gaps.
name partial seq
A-B-C-0001 A-B-C- 0001
A-B-C-0017 A-B-C- 0017
In the above example, it would be 0002.
The distinct name values total 227,705. The number of "partial" combinations is quite large A=150, B=218, C=52 so 1,700,400 potential combinations.
I found a way to iterate through from min to max per distinct value and list all the "missing" (aka available) values, but this seems inefficient given we are not using anywhere close to the max potential partial combinations (10,536 out of 1,700,400).
I'd rather have a table based on existing data with a partial value, it's next available sequence value, and a non-existent partial means 0001.
Thanks
Hmmmm, you can try this:
select coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where partial = 'A-B-C-' and
not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
);
EDIT:
For all partials you need a group by:
You can use to_char() to convert it back to a character, if necessary.
select partial, coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
)
group by partial;
I have an SQL Query which extracts columns from a table that must be in this order
Item Id,
Parms,
Move list,
MsgId. I also have a couple of requirements in the query that must remain there such as UserCode = automation and the Date is set to one day prior to the current day.
An example of the Parms output for one row is such
CURRENT OUTPUT
Parms:
V51370,Move List,M-000001
--
REQUIRED OUTPUT
Media: v51370
Comments: Was Removed From
Move List: M-000001
What I want to do is split this Parms column into two separate columns that are in between the Item Id and Move list Column. The first Column should be called Media which extracts the first six characters from the Parms Column:v51370. The second column is comments and if the MsgId is 1 the comment should be: Was Removed from.
Can Anyone make any suggestions to a possible query I could test? I'm not sure where to fit the Parms column split in there. That would be greatly appreciated.
Please Note: I am using SQL Server Management Studio 2008, and the table name is JnlList.
1 SAMPLE ROW (SELECT * FROM JNLLIST):
ItemId: 2
Date: 20122102.124652563
Object: S-000001
MsgID: 1
Parms: V86143,Scratch List,S-000001
Delimiter: -
UserCode: Automation
ActionId: 5
List Type: S
to seperate the first 6 chars from the parms use
SELECT SUBSTRING(Parms,1,6) AS Media
FROM YOUR TABLE;
Then you can use a subquery with the same syntax to select the rest of the chars from the Parms column and put them into a seperate column
I'm working with a database, where one of the fields I extract is something like:
1-117 3-134 3-133
Each of these number sets represents a different set of data in another table. Taking 1-117 as an example, 1 = equipment ID, and 117 = equipment settings.
I have another table from which I need to extract data based on the previous field. It has two columns that split equipment ID and settings. Essentially, I need a way to go from the queried column 1-117 and run a query to extract data from another table where 1 and 117 are two separate corresponding columns.
So, is there anyway to split this number to run this query?
Also, how would I split those three numbers (1-117 3-134 3-133) into three different query sets?
The tricky part here is that this column can have any number of sets here (such as 1-117 3-133 or 1-117 3-134 3-133 2-131).
I'm creating these queries in a stored procedure as part of a larger document to display the extracted data.
Thanks for any help.
Since you didn't provide the DB vendor, here's two posts that answer this question for SQL Server and Oracle respectively...
T-SQL: Opposite to string concatenation - how to split string into multiple records
Splitting comma separated string in a PL/SQL stored proc
And if you're using some other DBMS, go search for "splitting text ". I can almost guarantee you're not the first one to ask, and there's answers for every DBMS flavor out there.
As you said the format is constant though, you could also do something simpler using a SUBSTRING function.
EDIT in response to OP comment...
Since you're using SQL Server, and you said that these values are always in a consistent format, you can do something as simple as using SUBSTRING to get each part of the value and assign them to T-SQL variables, where you can then use them to do whatever you want, like using them in the predicate of a query.
Assuming that what you said is true about the format always being #-### (exactly 1 digit, a dash, and 3 digits) this is fairly easy.
WITH EquipmentSettings AS (
SELECT
S.*,
Convert(int, Substring(S.AwfulMultivalue, V.Value * 6 - 5, 1) EquipmentID,
Convert(int, Substring(S.AwfulMultivalue, V.Value * 6 - 3, 3) Settings
FROM
SourceTable S
INNER JOIN master.dbo.spt_values V
ON V.Value BETWEEN 1 AND Len(S.AwfulMultivalue) / 6
WHERE
V.type = 'P'
)
SELECT
E.Whatever,
D.Whatever
FROM
EquipmentSettings E
INNER JOIN DestinationTable D
ON E.EquipmentID = D.EquipmentID
AND E.Settings = D.Settings
In SQL Server 2005+ this query will support 1365 values in the string.
If the length of the digits can vary, then it's a little harder. Let me know.
Incase if the sets does not increase by more than 4 then you can use Parsename to retrieve the result
Declare #Num varchar(20)
Set #Num='1-117 3-134 3-133'
select parsename(replace (#Num,' ','.'),3)
Result :- 1-117
Now again use parsename on the same resultset
Select parsename(replace(parsename(replace (#Num,' ','.'),3),'-','.'),1)
Result :- 117
If the there are more than 4 values then use split functions
I'd like to consult one thing. I have table in DB. It has 2 columns and looks like this:
Name...bilance
Jane...+3
Jane...-5
Jane...0
Jane...-8
Jane...-2
Paul...-1
Paul...2
Paul....9
Paul...1
...
I have to walk through this table and if I find record with different "name" (than was on previous row) I process all rows with the previous "name". (If I step on the first Paul row I process all Jane rows)
The processing goes like this:
Now I work only with Jane records and walk through them one by one. On each record I stop and compare it with all previous Jane rows one by one.
The task is to sumarize "bilance" column (in the scope of actual person) if they have different signs
Summary:
I loop through this table in 3 levels paralelly (nested loops)
1st level = search for changes of "name" column
2nd level = if change was found, get all rows with previous "name" and walk through them
3rd level = on each row stop and walk through all previous rows with current "name"
Can this be solved only using CURSOR and FETCHING, or is there some smoother solution?
My real table has 30 000 rows and 1500 people and If I do the logic in PHP, it takes long minutes and than timeouts. So I would like to rewrite it to MS SQL 2000 (no other DB is allowed). Are cursors fast solution or is it better to use something else?
Thank you for your opinions.
UPDATE:
There are lots of questions about my "summarization". Problem is a little bit more difficult than I explained. I simplified it just to describe my algorithm.
Each row of my table contains much more columns. The most important is month. That's why there are more rows for each person. Each is for different month.
"Bilances" are "working overtimes" and "arrear hours" of workers. And I need to sumarize + and - bilances to neutralize them using values from previous months. I want to have as many zeroes as possible. All the table must stay as it is, just bilances must be changed to zeroes.
Example:
Row (Jane -5) will be summarized with row (Jane +3). Instead of 3 I will get 0 and instead of -5 I will get -2. Because I used this -5 to reduce +3.
Next row (Jane 0) won't be affected
Next row (Jane -8) can not be used, because all previous bilances are negative
etc.
You can sum all the values per name using a single SQL statement:
select
name,
sum(bilance) as bilance_sum
from
my_table
group by
name
order by
name
On the face of it, it sounds like this should do what you want:
select Name, sum(bilance)
from table
group by Name
order by Name
If not, you might need to elaborate on how the Names are sorted and what you mean by "summarize".
I'm not sure what you mean by this line... "The task is to sumarize "bilance" column (in the scope of actual person) if they have different signs".
But, it may be possible to use a group by query to get a lot of what you need.
select name, case when bilance < 0 then 'negative' when bilance >= 0 then 'positive', count(*)
from table
group by name, bilance
That might not be perfect syntax for the case statement, but it should get you really close.