I have a table called products with the following schema and data:
| product_id | name | description | price | location |
| NUMBER | VARCHAR2 | CLOB |NUMBER(9,2)| SDO_GEOMETRY |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 27 | Nexus 4 | Android phone | 160 | null |
When I issue a SELECT * FROM products; query, I get the data back. All is well. But I want to be able to get results back using CONTAINS() in a where, like this:
SELECT "PRODUCT_ID", "NAME", "DESCRIPTION", "PRICE"
FROM "PRODUCTS"
WHERE CONTAINS("NAME", 'nexus') > 0;
However I'm getting no results back. The same thing happens when I change nexus to Nexus or Nexus 4. I thought it might be something to do with name being a resolved word, but the same thing happens with the description column.
Turns out this is because I had two text indexes on the same table, for name and description. I removed the one for description and it worked.
If you don't use mixed/lower case table and column names, all of the " characters can be removed in your query ...
SELECT product_id, name, description, price FROM product WHERE CONTAINS(name, '%Nexus%') > 0;
Related
I have the following table:
postgres=# \d so_rum;
Table "public.so_rum"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
-----------+-------------------------+-----------+----------+---------
id | integer | | |
title | character varying(1000) | | |
posts | text | | |
body | tsvector | | |
parent_id | integer | | |
Indexes:
"so_rum_body_idx" rum (body)
I wanted to do phrase search query, so I came up with the below query, for example:
select id from so_rum
where body ## phraseto_tsquery('english','Is it possible to toggle the visibility');
This gives me the results, which only match's the entire text. However, there are documents, where the distance between lexmes are more and the above query doesn't gives me back those data. For example: 'it is something possible to do toggle between the. . . visibility' doesn't get returned. I know I can get it returned with <2> (for example) distance operator by giving in the to_tsquery, manually.
But I wanted to understand, how to do this in my sql statement itself, so that I get the results first with distance of 1 and then 2 and so on (may be till 6-7). Finally append results with the actual count of the search words like the following query:
select count(id) from so_rum
where body ## to_tsquery('english','string & string . . . ')
Is it possible to do in a single query with good performance?
I don't see a canned solution to this. It sounds like you need to use plainto_tsquery to get all the results with all the lexemes, and then implement your own custom ranking function to rank them by distance between the lexemes, and maybe filter out ones with the wrong order.
I've got an issue when trying to visualize in Google Data Studio some information from a denormalized table.
Context: I want to gather all the contact of a company and there related orders in a table in Big Query. Contacts can have no order or multiple orders. Following Big Query best practice, this table is denormalized and all the orders for a client are in arrays of struct. It looks like this:
Fields Examples:
+-------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| Row # | Contact_Id | Orders.date | Orders.id |
+-------+------------+-------------+-----------+
|- 1 | 23 | 2019-02-05 | CB1 |
| | | 2020-03-02 | CB293 |
|- 2 | 2321 | - | - |
|- 3 | 77 | 2010-09-03 | AX3 |
+-------+------------+-------------+-----------+
The issue is when I want to use this table as a data source in Data Studio.
For instance, if I build a table with Contact_Id as dimension, everything is fine and I can see all my contacts. However, if I add any dimensions from the Orders struct, all info from contact with no orders are not displayed. For instance, all info from Contact_Id 2321 is removed from the table.
Have you find any workaround to visualize these empty arrays (for instance as null values)?
The only solution I've found is to build an intermediary table with the orders unnested.
The way I've just discovered to work around this is to add an extra field in my DS-> BQ connector:
ARRAY_LENGTH(fields.orders) AS numberoforders
This will return zero if the array is empty - you can then create calculated fields within DataStudio - using the "numberoforders" field to force values to NULL or zero.
You can fix this behaviour by changing a little your query on the BigQuery connector.
Instead of doing this:
SELECT
Contact_id,
Orders
FROM myproject.mydataset.mytable
try this:
SELECT
Contact_id,
IF(ARRAY_LENGTH(Orders) > 0, Orders, [STRUCT(CAST(NULL AS DATE) AS date, CAST(NULL AS STRING) AS id)]) AS Orders
FROM myproject.mydataset.mytable
This way you are forcing your repeated field to have, at least, an array containing NULL values and hence Data Studio will represent those missing values.
Also, if you want to create new calculated fields using one of the nested fields, you should check before if the value is NULL to avoid filling all NULL values. For example, if you have a repeated and nested field which can be 1 or 0, and you want to create a calculated field swaping the value, you should do:
IF(myfield.key IS NOT NULL, IF(myfield.key = 1, 0, 1), NULL)
Here you can see what happens if you check before swaping and if you don't:
Original value No check Check
1 0 0
0 1 1
NULL 1 NULL
1 0 0
NULL 1 NULL
I am building report in Oracle Apex 4.2. Table that report is build on has multiple values inside one of the columns.
-----------------------------------
| ID | NAME | PROJECT_ID |
-----------------------------------
| 1 | P1 | 23:45:56 |
| 2 | P2 | 23 |
| 3 | P3 | 45:65 |
-----------------------------------
I would like to build a query to retrieve names based on project_id's.
Select name from table where project_id = 23;
This obviously will return P2 only however I would like to build a query which would return P1 and P2 if we searched for 23.
Any help greatly appreciated.
You can use LIKE instead of = :
Select name from table where project_id LIKE '%23%';
If you've got a common delimiter such as the ':' in your example you could use the following to exclude results like '123':
SELECT name FROM table WHERE ':' || project_id || ':' LIKE '%:23:%'
By concatenating the delimiter to the front and back of the string, you don't have to write multiple criteria: LIKE '23:%' OR LIKE '%:23:%' OR LIKE '%:23' to handle the first and last number in the list.
This is a common design in Apex due to its builtin support for colon-delimited strings (e.g. to drive shuttle controls and other item types).
I generally use this pattern:
Select name from table where INSTR(':'||project_id||':',':23:') > 0;
P.S. It's a pity about that column name - I would have called it something like PROJECT_ID_LIST.
I am trying to write up a query for wordpress which will give me all the post_id's with the lowest fromprice field for each region. Now the trick is these are custom fields in wordpress, and due to such, the information is stored row based, so there is no region and fromprice columns.
So the data I have is (but of course containing a lot more rows):
Post_ID | Meta_Key | Meta_Value
1 | Region | Location1
1 | FromPrice | 150
2 | Region | Location1
2 | FromPrice | 160
3 | Region | Location2
3 | FromPrice | 145
The query I am endeavoring to build should return the post_id of the "lowest priced" matching post grouped by each region with results like:
Post_ID | Region | From Price
1 | Location1 | 150
3 | Location2 | 145
This will allow me to easily iterate the post_id's and print the required information, in fact, I would be just happy with returning post_id's if the rest is harder, I can then fetch the information independently if need be.
Thanks a lot, tearing my hair out over this one; don't often have to think about shifting results on their side from row based to column based that often, but this time I need it!
So you get an idea of the table structure I have, you can use the below as a guide. I thought I had this, but it turned out yes, this query prints out each distinct region WITH the lowest from price found attached to that post in the region, but the post_id is completely incorrect. I don't know why, it seems to be just getting the first result of the post_id and using that.
SELECT pm.post_id,
pm2.meta_value as region,
MIN(pm.meta_value) as price
FROM `wp_postmeta` pm
inner join `wp_postmeta` pm2
on pm2.post_id = pm.post_id
AND pm2.meta_key = 'region'
AND pm.meta_key = 'fromprice'
group by region
I suggest changing MIN(pm.meta_value) in your query to be MIN(CAST(pm.meta_value AS DECIMAL)). Meta_value is a character field, so your existing query will be returning the minimum string value, not the minimum numeric value; for example, "100" will be deemed to be lower than "21".
EDIT - amended CAST syntax.
It's hard to figure out without being able to execute the query, but would it help to just change your group by to:
group by pm.post_id, region
in a table "partners", i've a field "sites" which can contain values like 1,27,38,12
then, in a website which has ID n°27, i would like to get partners associated to this website.
I tried this :
SELECT * FROM partners WHERE 27 IN (partners.sites)
It works if 27 is at the beginning of the string (eg: 27,1,128) but it doesn't work if 27 is in the middle (eg: 1,27,38,12)
Have you got any idea to manage this ?
Thanks.
Cyril
see the manual for find_in_set
This doesn't make any sense
Why not make
select * from partners where sites=27?
Or are you suggesting that sites is a varchar containing CSV?
In this case this is totally wrong from any perspective. Do a one-to-many relationship in your database.
You may want to use the FIND_IN_SET() function, because the IN() function will not expect a comma-separated string as an argument.
This does not work:
SELECT 27 IN ('1,27,5');
+------------------+
| 27 IN ('1,27,5') |
+------------------+
| 0 |
+------------------+
This works:
SELECT FIND_IN_SET(27, '1,27,5') > 0;
+-------------------------------+
| FIND_IN_SET(27, '1,27,5') > 0 |
+-------------------------------+
| 1 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
SELECT * FROM partners WHERE partners.sites like '%27%'
I would have to agree that using relationships will not only be better practice, but will optimize your database request speeds as well, even if it's non noticeable, every bit counts.
So assuming you had a separate table called sites, you could do a call like follows:
SELECT * FROM partners WHERE pid IN (SELECT spid FROM sites WHERE siteid = 27);
Your relationship could then be something like:
-------------------------------------
PARTNERS
-------------------------------------
pid | some field |
2 | |
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
SITES
-------------------------------------
spid | siteid | surl
2 | 27 | http://...
-------------------------------------
Assuming sites is a field in the same table you're querying, you could try this:
SELECT * FROM partners WHERE sites LIKE %27;
SELECT * FROM partners WHERE sites LIKE 27;
Does that work?