I am still confused by the syntax rules of using GROUP BY. I understand we use GROUP BY when there is some aggregate function. If I have even one aggregate function in a SQL statement, do I need to put all of my selected columns into my GROUP BY statement? I don't have a specific query to ask about but when I try to do joins, I get errors. In particular, when I use a count(*) in a statement and/or a join, I just seem to mess it up.
I use BigQuery at my job. I am regularly floored by strange gaps in knowledge.
Thank you!
This is a little complicated.
First, no aggregation functions are needed in an aggregation query. So this is allowed:
select a
from t
group by a;
This is equivalent, by the way, to:
select distinct a
from t;
If there are aggregation functions, then no group by is needed. So, this is allowed:
select max(a)
from t;
Such an aggregation query -- with no group by -- always returns one row. This is true even if the table is empty or a where clause filters out all the rows. In that case, most aggregation functions return NULL, with the notable exception of count() that returns 0.
Next, if you mix aggregation functions and non-aggregation expressions in the select, then in general you want the non-aggregation, non-constant expressions in the group by. I should note that you can do:
select a, concat(a, 'bcd'), count(*)
from t
group by a;
This should work, but sometimes BigQuery gets confused and will want the expression in the group by.
Finally, the SQL standard supports a query like this:
select t.*, count(*)
from t join
u
using (foo)
group by t.a;
When a is the primary key (or equivalent) in t. However, BigQuery does not have primary keys, so this is not relevant to that database.
I have a query
SELECT bk_publisher, bk_price FROM books
GROUP BY bk_price, bk_publisher
and
SELECT bk_publisher ,bk_price FROM books
both are returning the same results. Means i have 12 records in my table and both queries returning the 12 records. What is the difference ? Although i am using group by, which is use with aggregate functions. But i want to know is group by making any difference here ?
SELECT bk_publisher, bk_price FROM books
GROUP BY bk_price, bk_publisher
Will result distinct pairs of (publisher, price), even if your table contains duplicated data.
SQL group by helps you group different results by some identical value (using aggregation functions on other values)
In your case it doesn't mean anything, but when you want to aggregate values based on identical field, you use group by.
For example, if you want to get the max price of a publisher:
SELECT bk_publisher, max(bk_price) FROM books
GROUP BY bk_publisher
The GROUP BY statement is used to group the result-set by one or more columns.Group by is used when you have repeating data and you want single record for each entry.
When you use GROUP BY, it will squeeze multiple rows having identical columns listed in GROUP BY as single row in output.
It also means that in general, all other columns mentioned in SELECT list must be wrapped in aggregate functions like sum(), avg(), count(), etc.
Some SQL engines like MySQL permit not using aggregates, but many people consider this a bug.
GROUP BY clause is apparently showing no effect because there is no repeating combination of bk_price, bk_publisher values.
This question already has answers here:
ORA-00979 not a group by expression
(10 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I tried to read about not a group by expression errors from some other posts, but all of them mention group functions such as MAX, MIN, etc. I'm not using any of it and it's a really simple query returning this sort of error.
SELECT *
FROM ad_voarnet_atendimento_pista
WHERE is_closed = 0
GROUP BY prefixo
ORDER BY prefixo
What am I doing wrong here?
Edit:
The expected result is the same that MySQL would give me with this query. It would exclude every duplicated value of the column PREFIXO. I want only 1 record of each value in the mentioned column.
The error message is this:
[Err] ORA-00979: not a GROUP BY expression
The GROUP BY is not useful outside of the context of an aggregate function like MIN() MAX() SUM() COUNT(), except perhaps to deduplicate rows. Just remove it. If you are looking to deduplicate results, use DISTINCT instead. If you use DISTINCT, it won't be of much value unless you are more specific about the columns in the SELECT list, excluding the primary key column.
SELECT
DISTINCT *
FROM
AD_VOARNET_ATENDIMENTO_PISTA
WHERE IS_CLOSED = 0
ORDER BY PREFIXO
GROUP BY is sometimes confused with ORDER BY. You already have an ORDER BY PREFIX0,
I ran a query against Northwind database Products Table like below
select * from Northwind.dbo.Products GROUP BY CategoryID and i was hit with a error. I am sure you will also be hit by same error. So what is the correct statement that i need to execute to group all products with respect to their category id's.
edit: this like really helped understand a lot
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/jeffs/archive/2007/07/20/but-why-must-that-column-be-contained-in-an-aggregate.aspx
You need to use an Aggregate function and then group by any non-aggregated columns.
I recommend reading up on GROUP BY.
If you're using GROUP BY in a query, all items in your SELECT statement must either be contained as part of an aggregate function, e.g. Sum() or Count(), else they will also need to be included in the GROUP BY clause.
Because you are using SELECT *, this is equivalent to listing ALL columns in your SELECT.
Therefore, either list them all in the GROUP BY too, use aggregating functions for the rest where possible, or only select the CategoryID.
What is the difference between HAVING and WHERE in an SQL SELECT statement?
EDIT: I have marked Steven's answer as the correct one as it contained the key bit of information on the link:
When GROUP BY is not used, HAVING behaves like a WHERE clause
The situation I had seen the WHERE in did not have GROUP BY and is where my confusion started. Of course, until you know this you can't specify it in the question.
HAVING: is used to check conditions after the aggregation takes place.
WHERE: is used to check conditions before the aggregation takes place.
This code:
select City, CNT=Count(1)
From Address
Where State = 'MA'
Group By City
Gives you a table of all cities in MA and the number of addresses in each city.
This code:
select City, CNT=Count(1)
From Address
Where State = 'MA'
Group By City
Having Count(1)>5
Gives you a table of cities in MA with more than 5 addresses and the number of addresses in each city.
HAVING specifies a search condition for a
group or an aggregate function used in SELECT statement.
Source
Number one difference for me: if HAVING was removed from the SQL language then life would go on more or less as before. Certainly, a minority queries would need to be rewritten using a derived table, CTE, etc but they would arguably be easier to understand and maintain as a result. Maybe vendors' optimizer code would need to be rewritten to account for this, again an opportunity for improvement within the industry.
Now consider for a moment removing WHERE from the language. This time the majority of queries in existence would need to be rewritten without an obvious alternative construct. Coders would have to get creative e.g. inner join to a table known to contain exactly one row (e.g. DUAL in Oracle) using the ON clause to simulate the prior WHERE clause. Such constructions would be contrived; it would be obvious there was something was missing from the language and the situation would be worse as a result.
TL;DR we could lose HAVING tomorrow and things would be no worse, possibly better, but the same cannot be said of WHERE.
From the answers here, it seems that many folk don't realize that a HAVING clause may be used without a GROUP BY clause. In this case, the HAVING clause is applied to the entire table expression and requires that only constants appear in the SELECT clause. Typically the HAVING clause will involve aggregates.
This is more useful than it sounds. For example, consider this query to test whether the name column is unique for all values in T:
SELECT 1 AS result
FROM T
HAVING COUNT( DISTINCT name ) = COUNT( name );
There are only two possible results: if the HAVING clause is true then the result with be a single row containing the value 1, otherwise the result will be the empty set.
The HAVING clause was added to SQL because the WHERE keyword could not be used with aggregate functions.
Check out this w3schools link for more information
Syntax:
SELECT column_name, aggregate_function(column_name)
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name operator value
GROUP BY column_name
HAVING aggregate_function(column_name) operator value
A query such as this:
SELECT column_name, COUNT( column_name ) AS column_name_tally
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name < 3
GROUP
BY column_name
HAVING COUNT( column_name ) >= 3;
...may be rewritten using a derived table (and omitting the HAVING) like this:
SELECT column_name, column_name_tally
FROM (
SELECT column_name, COUNT(column_name) AS column_name_tally
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name < 3
GROUP
BY column_name
) pointless_range_variable_required_here
WHERE column_name_tally >= 3;
The difference between the two is in the relationship to the GROUP BY clause:
WHERE comes before GROUP BY; SQL evaluates the WHERE clause before it groups records.
HAVING comes after GROUP BY; SQL evaluates HAVING after it groups records.
References
SQLite SELECT Statement Syntax/Railroad Diagram
Informix SELECT Statement Syntax/Railroad Diagram
HAVING is used when you are using an aggregate such as GROUP BY.
SELECT edc_country, COUNT(*)
FROM Ed_Centers
GROUP BY edc_country
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
ORDER BY edc_country;
WHERE is applied as a limitation on the set returned by SQL; it uses SQL's built-in set oeprations and indexes and therefore is the fastest way to filter result sets. Always use WHERE whenever possible.
HAVING is necessary for some aggregate filters. It filters the query AFTER sql has retrieved, assembled, and sorted the results. Therefore, it is much slower than WHERE and should be avoided except in those situations that require it.
SQL Server will let you get away with using HAVING even when WHERE would be much faster. Don't do it.
WHERE clause does not work for aggregate functions
means : you should not use like this
bonus : table name
SELECT name
FROM bonus
GROUP BY name
WHERE sum(salary) > 200
HERE Instead of using WHERE clause you have to use HAVING..
without using GROUP BY clause, HAVING clause just works as WHERE clause
SELECT name
FROM bonus
GROUP BY name
HAVING sum(salary) > 200
Difference b/w WHERE and HAVING clause:
The main difference between WHERE and HAVING clause is, WHERE is used for row operations and HAVING is used for column operations.
Why we need HAVING clause?
As we know, aggregate functions can only be performed on columns, so we can not use aggregate functions in WHERE clause. Therefore, we use aggregate functions in HAVING clause.
One way to think of it is that the having clause is an additional filter to the where clause.
A WHERE clause is used filters records from a result. The filter occurs before any groupings are made. A HAVING clause is used to filter values from a group
In an Aggregate query, (Any query Where an aggregate function is used) Predicates in a where clause are evaluated before the aggregated intermediate result set is generated,
Predicates in a Having clause are applied to the aggregate result set AFTER it has been generated. That's why predicate conditions on aggregate values must be placed in Having clause, not in the Where clause, and why you can use aliases defined in the Select clause in a Having Clause, but not in a Where Clause.
I had a problem and found out another difference between WHERE and HAVING. It does not act the same way on indexed columns.
WHERE my_indexed_row = 123 will show rows and automatically perform a "ORDER ASC" on other indexed rows.
HAVING my_indexed_row = 123 shows everything from the oldest "inserted" row to the newest one, no ordering.
When GROUP BY is not used, the WHERE and HAVING clauses are essentially equivalent.
However, when GROUP BY is used:
The WHERE clause is used to filter records from a result. The
filtering occurs before any groupings are made.
The HAVING clause is used to filter values from a group (i.e., to
check conditions after aggregation into groups has been performed).
Resource from Here
From here.
the SQL standard requires that HAVING
must reference only columns in the
GROUP BY clause or columns used in
aggregate functions
as opposed to the WHERE clause which is applied to database rows
While working on a project, this was also my question. As stated above, the HAVING checks the condition on the query result already found. But WHERE is for checking condition while query runs.
Let me give an example to illustrate this. Suppose you have a database table like this.
usertable{ int userid, date datefield, int dailyincome }
Suppose, the following rows are in table:
1, 2011-05-20, 100
1, 2011-05-21, 50
1, 2011-05-30, 10
2, 2011-05-30, 10
2, 2011-05-20, 20
Now, we want to get the userids and sum(dailyincome) whose sum(dailyincome)>100
If we write:
SELECT userid, sum(dailyincome) FROM usertable WHERE
sum(dailyincome)>100 GROUP BY userid
This will be an error. The correct query would be:
SELECT userid, sum(dailyincome) FROM usertable GROUP BY userid HAVING
sum(dailyincome)>100
WHERE clause is used for comparing values in the base table, whereas the HAVING clause can be used for filtering the results of aggregate functions in the result set of the query
Click here!
When GROUP BY is not used, the WHERE and HAVING clauses are essentially equivalent.
However, when GROUP BY is used:
The WHERE clause is used to filter records from a result. The
filtering occurs before any groupings are made.
The HAVING clause is
used to filter values from a group (i.e., to check conditions after
aggregation into groups has been performed).
I use HAVING for constraining a query based on the results of an aggregate function. E.G. select * in blahblahblah group by SOMETHING having count(SOMETHING)>0