I have a table testtable having fields
Id Name Status
1 John active
2 adam active
3 cristy incative
4 benjamin inactive
5 mathew active
6 thomas inactive
7 james active
I want a query that should dispaly the reuslt like
Id Name Status
1 John active
3 cristy incative
2 adam active
4 benjamin inactive
5 mathew active
6 thomas inactive
7 james active
my question is how to take records in the order of active status then inactive then active then inactive etc.. like that from this table.
This query sorts on interleaved active/inactive state:
SELECT [id],
[name],
[status]
FROM (
(
SELECT
Row_number() OVER(ORDER BY id) AS RowNo,
0 AS sorter,
[id],
[name],
[status]
FROM testtable
WHERE [status] = 'active'
)
UNION ALL
(
SELECT
Row_number() OVER(ORDER BY id) AS RowNo,
1 AS sorter,
[id],
[name],
[status]
FROM testtable
WHERE [status] = 'inactive'
)
) innerUnion
ORDER BY ( RowNo * 2 + sorter )
This approach uses an inner UNION on two SELECT statements, one which returns active rows, the other inactive rows. They both have a RowNumber generated, which is later multiplied by two to ensure it's always even. There's a sorter column that's just a bit field, and to ensure that a unique number is available for sorting: adding it to the RowNumber yields either an odd or even number depending on active/inactive state, hence allowing the results to be interleaved.
The SQL Fiddle link is here, to allow testing and manipulation:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/8a8a1/11/0
In the absence of a specified DB system, I've assumed that SQL Server 2008 (or newer) is being used. An alternate row numbering system would be necessary on other DBMSes.
Finally i got the answer
SET #rank=0;
SET #rank1=0;
SELECT #rank:=#rank+1 AS rank,id,name,status FROM `testtablejohn` where status='E'
UNION
SELECT #rank1:=#rank1+1 AS rank,id,name,status FROM `testtablejohn` where status='D'
order by rank
Since you didn't post any example of what you tried so far, I will limit my answer to the general approach as well.
One approach could be to generate a row number for active rows and a row number for inactive rows. Start your numbering for active at 1 and use only odd numbers (that means increase your counter by 2 every time) and do the same thing with 2 and even numbers for the inactive rows. Put those two counters in the same column.
You will end up with a single column to easily sort on in your ORDER BY clause.
Here are some links that might be useful for you:
MySQL - Get row number on select
http://www.mysqltutorial.org/mysql-case-statement/
Just give it a go with those. If you can't make it work, then show us what you tried so far. Post some example code in the question and we might be able to guide you!
Related
Im after an sql statement (if it exists) or how to set up a method using several sql statements to achieve the following.
I have a listbox and a search text box.
in the search box, user would enter a surname e.g. smith.
i then want to query the database for the search with something like this :
select * FROM customer where surname LIKE searchparam
This would give me all the results for customers with surname containing : SMITH . Simple, right?
What i need to do is limit the results returned. This statement could give me 1000's of rows if the search param was just S.
What i want is the result, limited to the first 20 matches AND the 10 rows prior to the 1st match.
For example, SMI search:
Sives
Skimmings
Skinner
Skipper
Slater
Sloan
Slow
Small
Smallwood
Smetain
Smith ----------- This is the first match of my query. But i want the previous 10 and following 20.
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smoday
Smyth
Snedden
Snell
Snow
Sohn
Solis
Solomon
Solway
Sommer
Sommers
Soper
Sorace
Spears
Spedding
Is there anyway to do this?
As few sql statements as possible.
Reason? I am creating an app for users with slow internet connections.
I am using POSTGRESQL v9
Thanks
Andrew
WITH ranked AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() over (ORDER BY surname) AS rowNumber FROM customer
)
SELECT ranked.*
FROM ranked, (SELECT MIN(rowNumber) target FROM ranked WHERE surname LIKE searchparam) found
WHERE ranked.rowNumber BETWEEN found.target - 10 AND found.target + 20
ORDER BY ranked.rowNumber
SQL Fiddle here. Note that the fiddle uses the example data, and I modified the range to 3 entries before and 6 entries past.
I'm assuming that you're looking for a general algorithm ...
It sounds like you're looking for a combination of finding the matches "greater than or equal to smith", and "less than smith".
For the former you'd order by surname and limit the result to 20, and for the latter you'd order by surname descending and limit to 10.
The two result sets can then be added together as arrays and reordered.
I think you need to use ROW_NUMBER() (see this link).
WITH cust1 AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY surname) as numRow FROM customer
)
SELECT c1.surname, c1.numRow, x.flag
FROM cust1 c1, (SELECT *,
case when numRow = (SELECT MIN(numRow) FROM cust1 WHERE surname='Smith') then 1 else 0 end as flag
FROM cust1) x
WHERE x.flag = 1 and c1.numRow BETWEEN x.numRow - 1 AND x.numRow + 1
ORDER BY c1.numRow
SQLFiddle here.
This works, but the flag finally isn't necessary and it would be a query like PinnyM posts.
A variation on #PinnyM's solution:
WITH ranked AS (
SELECT
*,
ROW_NUMBER() over (ORDER BY surname) AS rowNumber
FROM customer
),
minrank AS (
SELECT
*,
MIN(CASE WHEN surname LIKE searchparam THEN rowNumber END) OVER () AS target
FROM ranked
)
SELECT
surname
FROM minrank
WHERE rowNumber BETWEEN target - 10 AND target + 20
;
Instead of two separate calls to the ranked CTE, one to get the first match's row number and the other to read the results from, another CTE is introduced to serve both purposes. Can't speak for PostgreSQL but in SQL Server this might result in a better execution plan for the query, although in either case the real efficiency would still need to be verified by proper testing.
Platform: SQL Server 2005 Express
Disclaimer: I’m quite a novice to SQL and so if you are happy to help with what may be a very simple question, then I won’t be offended if you talk slowly and use small words :-)
I have a table where I want to SUM the contents of multiple rows. However, I want to SUM one column only for the first occurrence of text in a different column.
Table schema for table 'tblMain'
fldOne {varchar(100)} Example contents: “Dandelion“
fldTwo {varchar(8)} Example contents: “01:00:00” (represents hh:mm:ss)
fldThree {numeric(10,0)} Example contents: “65”
Contents of table:
Row number fldOne fldTwo fldThree
------------------------------------------------
1 Dandelion 01:00:00 99
2 Daisy 02:15:00 88
3 Dandelion 00:45:00 77
4 Dandelion 00:30:00 10
5 Dandelion 00:15:00 200
6 Rose 01:30:00 55
7 Daisy 01:00:00 22
etc. ad nausium
If I use:
Select * from tblMain where fldTwo < ’05:00:00’ order by fldOne, fldTwo desc
Then all rows are correctly returned, ordered by fldOne and then fldTwo in descending order (although in the example data I've shown, all the data is already in the correct order!)
What I’d like to do is get the SUM of each fldThree, but only from the first occurrence of each fldOne.
So, SUM the first Dandelion, Daisy and Rose that I come across. E.g.
99+88+55
At the moment, I’m doing this programmatically; return a RecordSet from the Select statement above, and MoveNext through each returned row, only adding fldThree to my ‘total’ if I’ve never seen the text from fldOne before. It works, but most of the Select queries return over 100k rows and so it’s quite slow (slow being a relative term – it takes about 50 seconds on my setup).
The actual select statement (selecting about 100k rows from 1.5m total rows) completes in under a second which is fine. The current programatic loop is quite small and tight, it's just the number of loops through the RecordSet that takes time. I'm using adOpenForwardOnly and adLockReadOnly when I open the record set.
This is a routine that basically runs continuously as more data is added, and also the fldTwo 'times' vary, so I can't be more specific with the Select statement.
Everything that I’ve so far managed to do natively with SQL seems to run quickly and I’m hoping I can take the logic (and work) away from my program and get SQL to take the strain.
Thanks in advance
The best way to approach this is with window functions. These let you enumerate the rows within a group. However, you need some way to identify the first row. SQL tables are inherently unordered, so you need a column to specify the ordering. Here are some ideas.
If you have an id column, which is defined as an identity so it is autoincremented:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by id) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
To get an arbitrary row, you could use:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by (select NULL as noorder)) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
Or, if FldTwo has the values in reverse order:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by FldTwo desc) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
Maybe this?
SELECT SUM(fldThree) as ExpectedSum
FROM
(SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY fldOne ORDER BY fldTwo DSEC) Rn
FROM tblMain) as A
WHERE Rn = 1
I have health data relating to deaths. Individual should die once maximum. In the database they sometimes don't; probably because causes of death were changed but the original entry was not deleted. I don't really understand how this was allowed to happen, but it has. So, as a made up example, I have:
Row_number | Individual_ID | Cause_of_death | Date_of_death
------------+---------------+-----------------------+---------------
1 | 1 | Stroke | 3 march 2008
2 | 2 | Myocardial infarction | 1 jan 2009
3 | 2 | Pulmonary Embolus | 1 jan 2009
I want each individual to have only one cause of death.
In the example, I want a query that returns row 1 and either row 2 or row 3 (not both). I have to make an arbitrary choice between rows 2 and 3 because there is no timestamp in any of the fields that can be used to determine which is the revision; it's not ideal but is unavoidable.
I can't make the SQL work to do this. I've tried inner joining distinct Individual_ID to the other fields, but this still gives all the rows. I've tried adding a 'having count(Individual_ID) = 1' clause with it. This leaves out people with more than one cause of death completely. Suggestions on the internet seem to be based on using a timestamped field to choose the most recent, but I don't have that.
IBM DB2. Windows XP. Any thoughts gratefully received.
Have you tried using MIN (or MAX) against the cause of death. (and the date of death, if they died on two different dates)
SELECT IndividualID, MIN(Cause_Of_Death), MIN (Date_Of_Death)
from deaths
GROUP BY IndividualID
I don't know DB2 so I'll answer in general. There are two main approaches:
select *
from T
join (
select keys, min(ID) as MinID
from T
group by keys
) on T.ID = MinID
And
select *, row_number() over (partition by keys) as r
from T
where r = 1
Both return all rows, no matter if duplicate or not. But they returns only one duplicate per "key".
Notice, that both statements are pseudo-SQL.
The row_number() approach is probably preferable from a performance standpoint. Here is usr's example, in DB2 syntax:
select * from (
select T.*, row_number() over (partition by Individual_ID) as r
from T
)
where r=1;
This is a continuation of my previous question here.
In the following example:
id PRODUCT ID COLOUR
1 1001 GREEN
2 1002 GREEN
3 1002 RED
4 1003 RED
Given a product ID, I want to retrieve only one record - that with GREEN colour, if one exists, or the RED one otherwise. It sounds like I need to employ DISTINCT somehow, but I don't know how to supply the priority rule.
Pretty basic I'm sure, but my SQL skills are more than rusty..
Edit: Thank you everybody. One more question please: how can this be made to work with multiple records, ie. if the WHERE clause returns more than just one record? The LIMIT 1 would limit across the entire set, while what I'd want would be to limit just within each product.
For example, if I had something like SELECT * FROM table WHERE productID LIKE "1%" ... how can I retrieve each unique product, but still respecting the colour priority (GREEN>RED)?
try this:
SELECT top 1 *
FROM <table>
WHERE ProductID = <id>
ORDER BY case when colour ='GREEN' then 1
when colour ='RED' then 2 end
If you want to order it based on another color, you can give it in the case statement
SELECT *
FROM yourtable
WHERE ProductID = (your id)
ORDER BY colour
LIMIT 1
(Green will come before Red, you see. The LIMIT clause returns only one record)
For your subsequent edit, you can do this
select yourtable.*
from
yourtable
inner join
(select productid, min(colour) mincolour
from yourtable
where productid like '10%'
group by productid) v
on yourtable.productid=v.productid
and yourtable.colour=v.mincolour
Hi I know how to use the group by clause for sql. I am not sure how to explain this so Ill draw some charts. Here is my original data:
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
user1 9
user1 3
user2 1
user2 10
user3 97
Here is the output I need
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
Is this even possible?
The normal method for this is to handle it in the presentation layer, not the database layer.
Reasons:
The Name field is a property of that data row
If you leave the Name out, how do you know what Location goes with which name?
You are implicitly relying on the order of the data, which in SQL is a very bad practice (since there is no inherent ordering to the returned data)
Any solution will need to involve a cursor or a loop, which is not what SQL is optimized for - it likes working in SETS not on individual rows
Hope this helps
SELECT A.FINAL_NAME, A.LOCATION
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM YOUR_TABLE_7 YT) A
As Jirka correctly pointed out, I was using the Outer select, distinct and raw Name unnecessarily. My mistake was that as I used DISTINCT , I got the resulted sorted like
1 1
2 user2 1
3 user3 97
4 user1 1
5 3
6 9
7 10
I wanted to avoid output like this.
Hence I added the raw id and outer select
However , removing the DISTINCT solves the problem.
Hence only this much is enough
SELECT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM SO_BUFFER_TABLE_7 YT
Thanks Jirka
If you're using straight SQL*Plus to make your report (don't laugh, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it), you can do this with the BREAK command:
SQL> break on name
SQL> WITH q AS (
SELECT 'user1' NAME, 1 LOCATION FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 9 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 3 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 1 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 10 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user3', 97 FROM dual
)
SELECT NAME,LOCATION
FROM q
ORDER BY name;
NAME LOCATION
----- ----------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
6 rows selected.
SQL>
I cannot but agree with the other commenters that this kind of problem does not look like it should ever be solved using SQL, but let us face it anyway.
SELECT
CASE main.name WHERE preceding_id IS NULL THEN main.name ELSE null END,
main.location
FROM mytable main LEFT JOIN mytable preceding
ON main.name = preceding.name AND MIN(preceding.id) < main.id
GROUP BY main.id, main.name, main.location, preceding.name
ORDER BY main.id
The GROUP BY clause is not responsible for the grouping job, at least not directly. In the first approximation, an outer join to the same table (LEFT JOIN below) can be used to determine on which row a particular value occurs for the first time. This is what we are after. This assumes that there are some unique id values that make it possible to arbitrarily order all the records. (The ORDER BY clause does NOT do this; it orders the output, not the input of the whole computation, but it is still necessary to make sure that the output is presented correctly, because the remaining SQL does not imply any particular order of processing.)
As you can see, there is still a GROUP BY clause in the SQL, but with a perhaps unexpected purpose. Its job is to "undo" a side effect of the LEFT JOIN, which is duplication of all main records that have many "preceding" ( = successfully joined) records.
This is quite normal with GROUP BY. The typical effect of a GROUP BY clause is a reduction of the number of records; and impossibility to query or test columns NOT listed in the GROUP BY clause, except through aggregate functions like COUNT, MIN, MAX, or SUM. This is because these columns really represent "groups of values" due to the GROUP BY, not just specific values.
If you are using SQL*Plus, use the BREAK function. In this case, break on NAME.
If you are using another reporting tool, you may be able to compare the "name" field to the previous record and suppress printing when they are equal.
If you use GROUP BY, output rows are sorted according to the GROUP BY columns as if you had an ORDER BY for the same columns. To avoid the overhead of sorting that GROUP BY produces, add ORDER BY NULL:
SELECT a, COUNT(b) FROM test_table GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
Relying on implicit GROUP BY sorting in MySQL 5.6 is deprecated. To achieve a specific sort order of grouped results, it is preferable to use an explicit ORDER BY clause. GROUP BY sorting is a MySQL extension that may change in a future release; for example, to make it possible for the optimizer to order groupings in whatever manner it deems most efficient and to avoid the sorting overhead.
For full information - http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
SQL GROUP BY STATEMENT
SQL GROUP BY clause is used in collaboration with the SELECT statement to arrange identical data into groups.
Syntax:
1. SELECT column_nm, aggregate_function(column_nm) FROM table_nm WHERE column_nm operator value GROUP BY column_nm;
Example :
To understand the GROUP BY clauserefer the sample database.Below table showing fields from “order” table:
1. |EMPORD_ID|employee1ID|customerID|shippers_ID|
Below table showing fields from “shipper” table:
1. | shippers_ID| shippers_Name |
Below table showing fields from “table_emp1” table:
1. | employee1ID| first1_nm | last1_nm |
Example :
To find the number of orders sent by each shipper.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM orders LEFT JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID = shipper.shippers_ID GROUP BY shippers_Name;
1. | shippers_Name | No_of_orders |
Example :
To use GROUP BY statement on more than one column.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, table_emp1.last1_nm, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM ((orders INNER JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID=shipper.shippers_ID) INNER JOIN table_emp1 ON orders.employee1ID = table_emp1.employee1ID)
2. GROUP BY shippers_Name,last1_nm;
| shippers_Name | last1_nm |No_of_orders |
for more clarification refer my link
http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/