I use complex CASE WHEN for selecting values. I would like to use this result in WHERE clause, but Postgres says column 'd' does not exists.
SELECT id, name, case when complex_with_subqueries_and_multiple_when END AS d
FROM table t WHERE d IS NOT NULL
LIMIT 100, OFFSET 100;
Then I thought I can use it like this:
select * from (
SELECT id, name, case when complex_with_subqueries_and_multiple_when END AS d
FROM table t
LIMIT 100, OFFSET 100) t
WHERE d IS NOT NULL;
But now I am not getting a 100 rows as result. Probably (I am not sure) I could use LIMIT and OFFSET outside select case statement (where WHERE statement is), but I think (I am not sure why) this would be a performance hit.
Case returns array or null. What is the best/fastest way to exclude some rows if result of case statement is null? I need 100 rows (or less if not exists - of course). I am using Postgres 9.4.
Edited:
SELECT count(*) OVER() AS count, t.id, t.size, t.price, t.location, t.user_id, p.city, t.price_type, ht.value as houses_type_value, ST_X(t.coordinates) as x, ST_Y(t.coordinates) AS y,
CASE WHEN t.classification='public' THEN
ARRAY[(SELECT i.filename FROM table_images i WHERE i.table_id=t.id ORDER BY i.weight ASC LIMIT 1), t.description]
WHEN t.classification='protected' THEN
ARRAY[(SELECT i.filename FROM table_images i WHERE i.table_id=t.id ORDER BY i.weight ASC LIMIT 1), t.description]
WHEN t.id IN (SELECT rl.table_id FROM table_private_list rl WHERE rl.owner_id=t.user_id AND rl.user_id=41026) THEN
ARRAY[(SELECT i.filename FROM table_images i WHERE i.table_id=t.id ORDER BY i.weight ASC LIMIT 1), t.description]
ELSE null
END AS main_image_description
FROM table t LEFT JOIN table_modes m ON m.id = t.mode_id
LEFT JOIN table_types y ON y.id = t.type_id
LEFT JOIN post_codes p ON p.id = t.post_code_id
LEFT JOIN table_houses_types ht on ht.id = t.houses_type_id
WHERE datetime_sold IS NULL AND datetime_deleted IS NULL AND t.published=true AND coordinates IS NOT NULL AND coordinates && ST_MakeEnvelope(17.831490030182, 44.404640972306, 12.151558389557, 47.837396630872) AND main_image_description IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY t.id, m.value, y.value, p.city, ht.value ORDER BY t.id LIMIT 100 OFFSET 0
To use the CASE WHEN result in the WHERE clause you need to wrap it up in a subquery like you did, or in a view.
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT id, name, CASE
WHEN name = 'foo' THEN true
WHEN name = 'bar' THEN false
ELSE NULL
END AS c
FROM case_in_where
) t WHERE c IS NOT NULL
With a table containing 1, 'foo', 2, 'bar', 3, 'baz' this will return records 1 & 2. I don't know how long this SQL Fiddle will persist, but here is an example: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/1d3b4/3 . Also see https://stackoverflow.com/a/7950920/101151
Your limit is returning less than 100 rows if those 100 rows starting at offset 100 contain records for which d evaluates to NULL. I don't know how to limit the subselect without including your limiting logic (your case statements) re-written to work inside the where clause.
WHERE ... AND (
t.classification='public' OR t.classification='protected'
OR t.id IN (SELECT rl.table_id ... rl.user_id=41026))
The way you write it will be different and it may be annoying to keep the CASE logic in sync with the WHERE limiting statements, but it would allow your limits to work only on matching data.
Related
I have a postgres query which is almost taking 7 seconds.
Joining two tables with where clause and when i use distinct it takes 7 seconds and without distinct i get the result in 500ms. I even applied index but of no help. How can i tune the query for better perfomance
select distinct RES.* from ACT_RU_TASK RES inner join ACT_RU_IDENTITYLINK I on
I.TASK_ID_ = RES.ID_ WHERE RES.ASSIGNEE_ is null
and I.TYPE_ = 'candidate'and ( I.GROUP_ID_ IN ( 'us1','us2') )
order by RES.priority_ desc LIMIT 10 OFFSET 0
For every RES.ID_ i have two I.TASK_ID_ so i need only unique records
Instead of using distinct use exists:
select RES.*
from ACT_RU_TASK RES
where exists (select 1
from ACT_RU_IDENTITYLINK I
where I.TASK_ID_ = RES.ID_ and
I.TYPE_ = 'candidate' and
I.GROUP_ID_ IN ( 'us1','us2')
) and
RES.ASSIGNEE_ is null
order by RES.priority_ desc
LIMIT 10 OFFSET 0;
For this query, you want an index on ACT_RU_IDENTITYLINK(TASK_ID_, TYPE_, GROUP_ID_). It is also possible that an index on ACT_RU_TASK(ASSIGNEE_, priority_, ID_) could be used.
The query below accesses the Votes table that contains over 30 million rows. The result set is then selected from using WHERE n = 1. In the query plan, the SORT operation in the ROW_NUMBER() windowed function is 95% of the query's cost and it is taking over 6 minutes to complete execution.
I already have an index on same_voter, eid, country include vid, nid, sid, vote, time_stamp, new to cover the where clause.
Is the most efficient way to correct this to add an index on vid, nid, sid, new DESC, time_stamp DESC or is there an alternative to using the ROW_NUMBER() function for this to achieve the same results in a more efficient manner?
SELECT v.vid, v.nid, v.sid, v.vote, v.time_stamp, v.new, v.eid,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
PARTITION BY v.vid, v.nid, v.sid ORDER BY v.new DESC, v.time_stamp DESC) AS n
FROM dbo.Votes v
WHERE v.same_voter <> 1
AND v.eid <= #EId
AND v.eid > (#EId - 5)
AND v.country = #Country
One possible alternative to using ROW_NUMBER():
SELECT
V.vid,
V.nid,
V.sid,
V.vote,
V.time_stamp,
V.new,
V.eid
FROM
dbo.Votes V
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Votes V2 ON
V2.vid = V.vid AND
V2.nid = V.nid AND
V2.sid = V.sid AND
V2.same_voter <> 1 AND
V2.eid <= #EId AND
V2.eid > (#EId - 5) AND
V2.country = #Country AND
(V2.new > V.new OR (V2.new = V.new AND V2.time_stamp > V.time_stamp))
WHERE
V.same_voter <> 1 AND
V.eid <= #EId AND
V.eid > (#EId - 5) AND
V.country = #Country AND
V2.vid IS NULL
The query basically says to get all rows matching your criteria, then join to any other rows that match the same criteria, but which would be ranked higher for the partition based on the new and time_stamp columns. If none are found then this must be the row that you want (it's ranked highest) and if none are found that means that V2.vid will be NULL. I'm assuming that vid otherwise can never be NULL. If it's a NULLable column in your table then you'll need to adjust that last line of the query.
I have a list and the returned table looks like this. I took the preview of only one car but there are many more.
What I need to do now is check that the current KM value is larger then the previous and smaller then the next. If this is not the case I need to make a field called Trustworthy and should fill it with either 1 or 0 (true/ false).
The result that I have so far is this:
validKMstand and validkmstand2 are how I calculate it. It did not work in one list so that is why I separated it.
In both of my tries my code does not work.
Here is the code that I have so far.
FullList as (
SELECT
*
FROM
eMK_Mileage as Mileage
)
, ValidChecked1 as (
SELECT
UL1.*,
CASE WHEN EXISTS(
SELECT TOP(1)UL2.*
FROM FullList AS UL2
WHERE
UL2.FK_CarID = UL1.FK_CarID AND
UL1.KM_Date > UL2.KM_Date AND
UL1.KM > UL2.KM
ORDER BY UL2.KM_Date DESC
)
THEN 1
ELSE 0
END AS validkmstand
FROM FullList as UL1
)
, ValidChecked2 as (
SELECT
List1.*,
(CASE WHEN List1.KM > ulprev.KM
THEN 1
ELSE 0
END
) AS validkmstand2
FROM ValidChecked1 as List1 outer apply
(SELECT TOP(1)UL3.*
FROM ValidChecked1 AS UL3
WHERE
UL3.FK_CarID = List1.FK_CarID AND
UL3.KM_Date <= List1.KM_Date AND
List1.KM > UL3.KM
ORDER BY UL3.KM_Date DESC) ulprev
)
SELECT * FROM ValidChecked2 order by FK_CarID, KM_Date
Maybe something like this is what you are looking for?
;with data as
(
select *, rn = row_number() over (partition by fk_carid order by km_date)
from eMK_Mileage
)
select
d.FK_CarID, d.KM, d.KM_Date,
valid =
case
when (d.KM > d_prev.KM /* or d_prev.KM is null */)
and (d.KM < d_next.KM /* or d_next.KM is null */)
then 1 else 0
end
from data d
left join data d_prev on d.FK_CarID = d_prev.FK_CarID and d_prev.rn = d.rn - 1
left join data d_next on d.FK_CarID = d_next.FK_CarID and d_next.rn = d.rn + 1
order by d.FK_CarID, d.KM_Date
With SQL Server versions 2012+ you could have used the lag() and lead() analytical functions to access the previous/next rows, but in versions before you can accomplish the same thing by numbering rows within partitions of the set. There are other ways too, like using correlated subqueries.
I left a couple of conditions commented out that deal with the first and last rows for every car - maybe those should be considered valid is they fulfill only one part of the comparison (since the previous/next rows are null)?
I have the following working sql sequence:
SELECT *, films.category AS filmCategory
FROM ( SELECT *
FROM films
ORDER BY `unique` ASC
LIMIT 6, 4) films
LEFT OUTER JOIN items ON items.unique = films.ref
ORDER BY films.unique ASC
This works well and selects the correct four elements from the DB. However, I have some rules that I check for using WHERE, that I can't get working. I have done the following:
SELECT *, films.category AS filmCategory
FROM ( SELECT *
FROM films
ORDER BY `unique` ASC
LIMIT 6, 4) films
LEFT OUTER JOIN items ON items.unique = films.ref
WHERE films.youtube IS NOT NULL AND films.youtube <> ''
ORDER BY films.unique ASC
where the only difference is the added line with the WHERE clause. But this doesn't work - in fact it makes no difference from before but returns the same rows.
How can I include these WHERE rules correctly in this sql sentence?
Note
The line films.youtube IS NOT NULL AND films.youtube <> '' is checking if a specific cell is empty. This is made with help from this question
Perhaps you are looking for a where clause in the subquery? That way, the limit will be applied after your where clause.
SELECT *, films.category AS filmCategory
FROM ( SELECT *
FROM films
WHERE films.youtube IS NOT NULL AND films.youtube <> ''
ORDER BY `unique` ASC
LIMIT 6, 4) films
LEFT OUTER JOIN items ON items.unique = films.ref
ORDER BY films.unique ASC
A small additional suggestion. You can simplify:
WHERE films.youtube IS NOT NULL AND films.youtube <> ''
to
WHERE films.youtube > ''
because null > '' is not true (but unknown.) Or perhaps more readable:
WHERE length(films.youtube) > 0
i am using Microsoft SQL Server 2008
i would like to save the result of a subquery to reuse it in a following subquery.
Is this possible?
What is best practice to do this? (I am very new to SQL)
My query looks like:
INSERT INTO [dbo].[TestTable]
(
[a]
,[b]
)
SELECT
(
SELECT TOP 1 MAT_WS_ID
FROM #TempTableX AS X_ALIAS
WHERE OUTERBASETABLE.LT_ALL_MATERIAL = X_ALIAS.MAT_RM_NAME
)
,(
SELECT TOP 1 MAT_WS_NAME
FROM #TempTableY AS Y_ALIAS
WHERE Y_ALIAS.MAT_WS_ID = MAT_WS_ID
--(
--SELECT TOP 1 MAT_WS_ID
--FROM #TempTableX AS X_ALIAS
--WHERE OUTERBASETABLE.LT_ALL_MATERIAL = X_ALIAS.MAT_RM_NAME
--)
)
FROM [dbo].[LASERTECHNO] AS OUTERBASETABLE
My question is:
Is this correct what i did.
I replaced the second SELECT Statement in the WHERE-Clause for [b] (which is commented out and exactly the same as for [a]), with the result of the first SELECT Statement of [a] (=MAT_WS_ID).
It seems to give the right results.
But i dont understand why!
I mean MAT_WS_ID is part of both temporary tables X_ALIAS and Y_ALIAS.
So in the SELECT statement for [b], in the scope of the [b]-select-query, MAT_WS_ID could only be known from the Y_ALIAS table. (Or am i wrong, i am more a C++, maybe the scope things in SQL and C++ are totally different)
I just wannt to know what is the best way in SQL Server to reuse an scalar select result.
Or should i just dont care and copy the select for every column and the sql server optimizes it by its own?
One approach would be outer apply:
SELECT mat.MAT_WS_ID
, (
SELECT TOP 1 MAT_WS_NAME
FROM #TempTableY AS Y_ALIAS
WHERE Y_ALIAS.MAT_WS_ID = mat.MAT_WS_ID
)
FROM [dbo].[LASERTECHNO] AS OUTERBASETABLE
OUTER APPLY
(
SELECT TOP 1 MAT_WS_ID
FROM #TempTableX AS X_ALIAS
WHERE OUTERBASETABLE.LT_ALL_MATERIAL = X_ALIAS.MAT_RM_NAME
) as mat
You could rank rows in #TempTableX and #TempTableY partitioning them by MAT_RM_NAME in the former and by MAT_WS_ID in the latter, then use normal joins with filtering by rownum = 1 in both tables (rownum being the column containing the ranking numbers in each of the two tables):
WITH x_ranked AS (
SELECT
*,
rownum = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY MAT_RM_NAME ORDER BY (SELECT 1))
FROM #TempTableX
),
y_ranked AS (
SELECT
*,
rownum = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY MAT_WS_ID ORDER BY (SELECT 1))
FROM #TempTableY
)
INSERT INTO dbo.TestTable (a, b)
SELECT
x.MAT_WS_ID,
y.MAT_WS_NAME
FROM dbo.LASERTECHNO t
LEFT JOIN x_ranked x ON t.LT_ALL_MATERIAL = x.MAT_RM_NAME AND x.rownum = 1
LEFT JOIN y_ranked y ON x.MAT_WS_ID = y.MAT_WS_ID AND y.rownum = 1
;
The ORDER BY (SELECT 1) bit is a trick to specify an indeterminate ordering, which, accordingly, would result in indeterminate rownum = 1 rows picked by the query. That is to more or less duplicate your TOP 1 without an explicit order, but I would recommend you to specify a more sensible ORDER BY clause to make the results more predictable.